Mum's the Word On Google Attack At Davos

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mum's the Word On Google Attack At Davos

Posted by timothy on Sunday January 31, 2010 @10:30AM from the still-deciding-on-culprit-perhaps dept.

theodp writes "BusinessWeek reports that the cyber attack on Google was the elephant-in-the-room at the annual meeting of world leaders in Davos. 'China didn't want to discuss Google,' Josef Ackermann, CEO of Deutsche Bank AG and a co-chair of this year's World Economic Forum, said in an interview. China's Vice Premier Li Keqiang made that clear, he added. Even Google CEO Eric Schmidt didn't bring up China, and Bill Gates was mum on the topic in an interview. The reluctance of companies to talk about China illustrates the pressure on them to protect their business in the country, while the US government doesn't want to upset Chinese investors, said Andy Mok of Red Pagoda Concepts LLC. 'People have their commercial interests,' explained Deutsche Bank's Ackermann."

217 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Soooo.... by Kell+Bengal · 2010-01-31 10:31 · Score: 4, Interesting

So they can just get away with it, right? Somehow I think what's -not- being said is far more interesting. I think the perpetrators will end up with more on their hands than they at first suspected when a bunch of IT powerhouses decide to start randomly hosing key pieces of their information infrastructure.

--
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
1. Re:Soooo.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 10:38 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  So they can just get away with it, right?
  The US recently "got away" with launching two wars that have resulted in the deaths of well over a hundred thousand innocent people. Which is, if we're counting, significantly worse than anything China has done to a relative few dissidents. Superpowers play by their own rules, unfortunately, and accountability can only take place internally.
2. Re:Soooo.... by Kell+Bengal · 2010-01-31 10:45 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Well, subjectively, have they "gotten away with" Iraq and Afghanistan? In 20 year's time, will there be a new generation of disaffected youth with a chip on their shoulder about the US who will again launch attacks in retaliation for the suffering caused? Just because the consequences aren't immediate doesn't mean they aren't coming. So too with the cyber attacks - I doubt the likes of Google will sit idlely by when people take pot-shots at them.
  
  --
  Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
  altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
3. Re:Soooo.... by The+Snowman · 2010-01-31 10:47 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  So they can just get away with it, right?
  The US recently "got away" with launching two wars that have resulted in the deaths of well over a hundred thousand innocent people. Which is, if we're counting, significantly worse than anything China has done to a relative few dissidents. Superpowers play by their own rules, unfortunately, and accountability can only take place internally.
  The U.S. got away with two wars that failed to accomplish their stated goals because it accomplished hidden economic goals (opened up the flow of oil). China will get away with what they are doing because of hidden economic goals. China's economy is growing tremendously and will continue to do so: the U.S. and its corporations want a piece of that. Humans rights? Yeah, those are important until corporate profits are on the line. Then they're not.
  
  --
  24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
4. Re:Soooo.... by maxume · 2010-01-31 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  Oil is such a stupid, facile explanation for those wars, I can't believe people think they are reasoning when they come to that conclusion.
  (It would have been quite a lot easier to do nothing, or even relax various embargoes)
  
  --
  Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
5. Re:Soooo.... by furbyhater · 2010-01-31 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  You're talking like American "IT-powerhouses" are superheroes or something. It's all about power and self-interest with these guys. You have been lied to.
6. Re:Soooo.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 11:17 · Score: 0
  
  I think the perpetrators will end up with more on their hands than they at first suspected when a bunch of IT powerhouses decide to start randomly hosing key pieces of their information infrastructure.
  You watch too much television, things are done differently in the real world. Once the rest of the world has had enough of the abuse from the Chinese, we will just unleash Chuck Norris on them. The ones he allows to survive will then be condemned to assembling iPads for the rest of their lives.
7. Re:Soooo.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 11:26 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The interests of capitalism and nationalism may overlap, but they are never the same.
  What may favor commercial interests may not work well for a given nation or nations.
  "Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains."
  Thomas Jefferson
8. Re:Soooo.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 11:37 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Ok, how about supporting the war machinery - supporting the various defense contractors. Anybody has a better reason?
9. Re:Soooo.... by _Sprocket_ · 2010-01-31 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  So they can just get away with it, right?
  This was not a military attack; it was espionage. These types of things have been going on for decades without direct, public reprisals.
10. Re:Soooo.... by larry+bagina · 2010-01-31 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  And much of the oil benefit is going to China which has stayed out their affairs. Kind of like how the US got access to their oil back in the day, when we kept to ourselves and it was Britain that was doing the nation building.
  
  --
  Do you even lift?
  These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
11. Re:Soooo.... by martin-boundary · 2010-01-31 11:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Well, subjectively, have they "gotten away with" Iraq and Afghanistan?
  
  Yes they have. The Bush administration is safe from reprisals, and will never be taken to account in any form.
  Oh, you meant are Americans in general safe? "Americans in general" don't matter.
12. Re:Soooo.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 12:16 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Oil is such a stupid, facile explanation for those wars, I can't believe people think they are reasoning when they come to that conclusion.
  Those of us with more than a lick of sense can't believe all you idiots who still think it wasn't an oil war -- and on behalf of Big Oil, not the U.S. directly. Congratulations, you're a moron.
13. Re:Soooo.... by Xaositecte · 2010-01-31 12:47 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Why did we go to war?
  I mean, Afghanistan makes a wea bit of sense, national outrage and whatnot - along with the old standby of keeping the war industry healthy, but Iraq. Why the devil are we in Iraq if not for oil?
  Giving them freedom is just propaganda, there are plenty of other "oppressed" nations in the world. Plenty of other nations engaged in civil wars, or on the verge of them.
  "Weapons of mass destruction" didn't really pan out.
  Even keeping the war industry healthy can't possibly be enough to justify all the grief politicians are going through as a result of all the wasted money from the rest of the country.
  The only other reasons I can see is that we're boxing in Iran in some kind of cold-war era containment doctrine action, a message to the rest of the world that American can just go in and invade whoever we want, and natural resources, the most prominent of which is oil.
14. Re:Soooo.... by BountyX · 2010-01-31 12:55 · Score: 1
  
  According to Hans, economic ambitions are just a means not an end. Human rights; however, is a true obtainable goal. Here is the video.
  
  --
  Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
15. Re:Soooo.... by PopeRatzo · 2010-01-31 13:19 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Which is, if we're counting, significantly worse than anything China has done to a relative few dissidents.
  We're not "counting".
  And if you're "counting" when do you start? Do you go back to the "two wars that have resulted in the deaths of well over a hundred thousand" or do you go back to Tiananmen Square or do you go back to Viet Nam or do you go back to the Cultural Revolution where tens of millions were murdered in the name of domestic policy?
  Bad is bad. Starting phony wars, imprisoning, torturing and killing dissidents...it's all evil. It's not a competition for who's the most fucked up. And believe me, if we're talking historically, it's not a competition that China wants to have. The best thing that could happen is when countries start calling each other on their shitty behavior. Air out the hypocrisy on both sides. Let's publish the names, the numbers of the dead and imprisoned. Let's have this discussion. And what the hell, since as far as I can tell Google as a corporation hasn't killed anyone yet, and has by most accounts behaved reasonably well as far as transnational corporations go, let them participate in the discussion too.
  And the idea that a corporation, big or not so big, decides to call a powerful customer on their shitty behavior...I'm OK with that too. The only responsibility Google has is to make a profit. That's what "corporation" means. The fact that they're willing to do something that puts pressure on a repressive regime - no matter the motivation - is a good thing too.
  I'm just tired of the "you guys did X so that means we can do Y, and how dare you criticize me for X when you've done Z" and it's all a downward cycle.
  Pressure against repressive regimes, no matter from which precinct it comes from, is a good thing.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
16. Re:Soooo.... by PopeRatzo · 2010-01-31 13:24 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Those of us with more than a lick of sense...
  
  But curiously, not the courage to claim your comment with an account name.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
17. Re:Soooo.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 13:29 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, you meant are Americans in general safe?
  Have Americans EVER been safe? Its not like the U.S. doesn't grow its own internal terrorists. Last time I checked Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma bomber, was born, raised and trained by the U.S.
18. Re:Soooo.... by PopeRatzo · 2010-01-31 13:31 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  It's all about power and self-interest with these guys.
  
  Look, for the time being these "guys" (big corporations) own and run the world.
  Until we're really ready to throw off our yokes, the best we can do is learn to discern the companies that are behaving decently and those that are not. There's a lot of information out there that we can use in the cause of this sort of discernment.
  Yes, Google is "all about self-interest". But until we learn that they've done something evil like fund a coup in Nigeria or Haiti or the Honduras or plunder some third world country or poison a water supply, or contribute to the Republicans (kidding, relax), we might as well give them the benefit of the doubt and judge them on their actions.
  Exxon, ADM, Monsanto, Haliburton, Blackwater, DuPont...well, it's not such a pretty picture there. But if a corporation behaves there's no reason that their "self-interest" should damn them (again, not until we're ready to throw of our yokes).
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
19. Re:Soooo.... by Bartab · 2010-01-31 13:34 · Score: 0
  
  Well, subjectively, have they "gotten away with" Iraq and Afghanistan? In 20 year's time, will there be a new generation of disaffected youth with a chip on their shoulder about the US who will again launch attacks in retaliation for the suffering caused?
  Almost certainly. Just like the French and German did and do. Only the Iraqis will be doing it via cyber attacks before they get bored, go down and buy a starbucks, and crash out in front of their big screen tv.
  
  --
  Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
20. Re:Soooo.... by PopeRatzo · 2010-01-31 13:35 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The interests of capitalism and nationalism may overlap, but they are never the same.
  I'm not sure "nationalism" is the word you want to use there.
  I'm trying to come up with a single case where "nationalism" turned out to be a good thing.
  I'm still thinking, but maybe somebody can offer one.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
21. Re:Soooo.... by Ethanol-fueled · 2010-01-31 13:38 · Score: 1
  
  Beautiful.
  
  I'm just tired of the "you guys did X so that means we can do Y, and how dare you criticize me for X when you've done Z" and it's all a downward cycle.
  It's as if we never leave the schoolyard.
22. Re:Soooo.... by Unoriginal_Nickname · 2010-01-31 13:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  IT powerhouses decide to start randomly hosing key pieces of their information infrastructure.
  IT powerhouses are publicly traded: it will never happen. Eric Schmidt wants to keep doing business with China even though they were hacked. Walmart will keep buying Chinese baby formula. Toys R Us will keep stocking Chinese toys. Purina will keep buying Chinese dog food.
  American investment and corporate ownership is a maze. Ideally a corporation is directly liable to its shareholders - meaning that, if the shareholders didn't want to do business with China, they would be able to influence the company in that direction. However, in reality, the 'shareholders' of a major corporation are large holding companies and mutual funds, which are also publicly-traded and owned by other large holding companies and mutual funds. If an executive takes actions that do not maximize profits, they will be removed or possibly sued by the soulless corporate automaton that owns them.
  The fact that Google got the consent of its shareholders to take any action about China is *incredible*, but Google's a huge exception in the IT world for the share of the company that's self-owned or owned by its employees. The rest - Cisco, Microsoft, Apple - are all in for the long run.
23. Re:Soooo.... by qbzzt · 2010-01-31 15:13 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  A large part of it may have been luring Jihadis to fight us in Iraq, where it is easy to supply the US military (ports, good roads, etc) rather than Afghanistan where it is not. Assuming a finite supply of young Muslims willing to die fighting the US, it is best to engage them where the US has the most advantage.
  
  --
  -- Support a free market in the field of government
24. Re:Soooo.... by drinkypoo · 2010-01-31 15:34 · Score: 1
  
  The only responsibility Google has is to make a profit. That's what "corporation" means.
  
  They also have the responsibility to follow the laws where they operate... unless, of course, they have a workable alternative like buying off officials, or groups thereof.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
25. Re:Soooo.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 15:44 · Score: 0
  
  "So they can just get away with it, right? Somehow I think what's -not- being said is far more interesting. I think the perpetrators will end up with more on their hands than they at first suspected when a bunch of IT powerhouses decide to start randomly hosing key pieces of their information infrastructure."
  Do they bring up our regular murdering of civilians? Our house is by no means clean.
26. Re:Soooo.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 15:45 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Ive actually been doing a lot of studying on the entire debacle, and everything comes down to two things. Money and Power. Now that sounds like a standard cover-it-all generality, but it really is true. The answer to the "Why...?" questions is answered, the specifics of How the Why was accomplished under the worlds nose is a bigger matter. But I digress, even the Iran containment theory holds no water, because both the Taliban and Saddam were pretty much sworn enemies of Iran and they mostly contained it by themselves. In many cases, any happenings in the Mid-East must be looked at through the Sunni or Shia tinted glasses to give you a better feel of what is going on. Anyway just a quick thought I'd throw out there to ya, since you seem to be relatively more intelligent about the subject than most people nowadays. I highly encourage people to start doing a lot more fact checking and reading, with a objective and rationale mind you just very well may have all kinds of beliefs challenged.
27. Re:Soooo.... by grcumb · 2010-01-31 15:54 · Score: 1
  
  I think the perpetrators will end up with more on their hands than they at first suspected when a bunch of IT powerhouses decide to start randomly hosing key pieces of their information infrastructure.
  I suspect that exactly the opposite is more likely: The IT powerhouses will end up with more on their hands than they at first suspected when the perpetrators decide to start randomly hosing key pieces of their information infrastructure.
  ... Not that I think either outcome is a certainty, by the way. Nonetheless, perhaps the most interesting part about this whole episode (and I'm including the mass-attack against US military assets earlier in 2009 here) is that the effort was so brazen. And when someone (Google) finally did pipe up, China's effective response was, 'Sit down and shut up if you know what's good for you.'
  It's not at all surprising that most of our so-called business leaders acquiesce. If MBA school teaches you anything, it's that you have to go along to get along.
  More analysis here, for anyone not frightened by TL;DR.
  
  --
  Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
28. Re:Soooo.... by AHuxley · 2010-01-31 15:54 · Score: 1
  
  Oil as a spoiler. Can flood the world with cheap oil and keep the price just right. So the oil producers never get too cashed up but can still by US projects, bases, kit.
  Also provides long term mega bases for US *outside* of cities for support for a few decades, with all the listening in intel needs.
  Pipleline deals can be done that bypass Iran and stop them earning 'rent'.
  Lets the US test a generation of new tech in the field and defence contractions know to give back to both US parties.
  The global stir and chatter of terror networks and their state sponsors is great too.
  Expands selected US firms into Iraq and swaps out a gov that was a client with a more unstable gov to mess with the region.
  From big Iraq, you have 3 failed areas with oil and lots who dislike Iran too.
  A CIA/NSA/black ops dream.
  As for China, the US can stir too as it did with Tibet under "ST Circus" and can play with cults, ngo's, press, color revolutions, and energy/imports.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
29. Re:Soooo.... by phantomfive · 2010-01-31 16:40 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  The American people chose to go to war by supporting Bush. If they hadn't, Bush wouldn't have been able to invade Iraq, just as Obama wasn't able to pass the healthcare bill. Support of the people is necessary in a democracy. Responsibility falls on the people.
  
  --
  Qxe4
30. Re:Soooo.... by bigdavex · 2010-01-31 16:42 · Score: 1
  
  The only other reasons I can see is that we're boxing in Iran in some kind of cold-war era containment doctrine action, a message to the rest of the world that American can just go in and invade whoever we want, and natural resources, the most prominent of which is oil.
  Iran and Iraq were enemies before the US invasion. Without constant military intervention, Iran's influence in Iraq will grow due to the toppling of the Sunni government.
  
  --
  -Dave
31. Re:Soooo.... by Xaositecte · 2010-01-31 16:45 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Eh, I was in the Air Force for four years, and got deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Comm guy, got to spend 12 hours a day in a bunker, waiting for stuff to break, reading, and doing homework for online classes. Still gave me a good reason to read up on all this and get a little personal experience in the area. The Iran containment thing is a favorite theory among the various members of the military that I talked to, and has a little more weight behind it than you give it credit for.
  The reasoning behind it is that Iraq was (supposedly, I'm not an authority on this) a failing state before we even moved in, and if it had fallen apart on its own the most likely successor would either be an official Iranian invasion, or an Iranian puppet government, neither of which would have been a good thing for American foreign interests.
  Furthermore, while the war and rebuilding nonsense is sucking us dry, and our military is pretty terrible at fighting a Guerrilla war (ALL formal militaries are pretty terrible at fighting against insurgencies like we see in Iraq and Afghanistan) - the assets we have in place in the Middle East could pretty well level any country in the area within a few days (destroying formal military forces is something we excel at).
  Beyond that, some group of people in the upper echelons of political power seem to believe an allied Middle East (creating something like the EU) would be a very bad thing, and American Foreign policy is reflecting that.
32. Re:Soooo.... by furball · 2010-01-31 16:56 · Score: 1
  
  Responsibility falls on the people.
  Kudos to you, sir.
33. Re:Soooo.... by Jenming · 2010-01-31 17:02 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  War for oil doesn't make a lot of sense. For the amount spent fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan (roughly 1 trillion) around 1/7 of the oil in Iraq (around 112 billion barrels) could be purchased at current prices ($77 per barrel). Sure prices are going to continue to rise, but the US does not have any special rights to Iraq oil now and so still has to buy it on the global market. Furthermore the oil could have been brought to market without a war for free.
  If oil was the primary reason for the war then the embargoes would have been lifted and the oil purchased.
  
  --
  Morpheus, God of Dreams.
34. Re:Soooo.... by UBfusion · 2010-01-31 17:21 · Score: 1
  
  "Big or not so big" corporations have always killed, directly or indirectly. It's thermodynamics, you can't make capital out of thin air.
  The degree of "killing" varies, from physical death to genetic damage to poverty and famine to exploitation of the workers. The distance between "killing" and "harm" is not that large.
  Google, in this or a future reincarnation will eventually invent a new kind of "killing" which now may not be obvious, because it would not necessarily involve financial capital. Capital is a means and not an end. Means for what, you may ask. Hint: there are other capitals too - freedom, privacy, information, thought, belief, emotion.
  Big or small corporations should NOT participate in any kind of local or global "discussion" because precisely such participation makes them even bigger.
  Disclaimer: I'm not a commie, just a philosopher.
35. Re:Soooo.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 17:29 · Score: 0
  
  Which is, if we're counting, significantly worse than anything China has done to a relative few dissidents.
  We're not "counting".
  And if you're "counting" when do you start? Do you go back to the "two wars that have resulted in the deaths of well over a hundred thousand" or do you go back to Tiananmen Square or do you go back to Viet Nam or do you go back to the Cultural Revolution where tens of millions were murdered in the name of domestic policy?
  Bad is bad. Starting phony wars, imprisoning, torturing and killing dissidents...it's all evil.
  Don't forget about dropping nuclear weapons in the center of heavily populated civilian centers with no military targets whatsoever. I think that is as bad as it gets.
  Somehow in my mind, millions dying out of some misguided policy that was intended as "better way" for them, is not as bad as intentionally killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in an instant.
36. Re:Soooo.... by Xaositecte · 2010-01-31 17:32 · Score: 1
  
  Then why are we there?
  I hear this a lot, there might even be something to it, but most other given reasons for the War in Iraq can be dismissed just as easily!
37. Re:Soooo.... by victorhooi · 2010-01-31 17:50 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  heya,
  I'm not American, I'm actually Australian, but I seriously do not understand these nutjobs and their conspiracy theories about Big Oil, and what not.
  Saddam Hussein was a appalling leader, I don't think anybody would argue against that. Him, his sons, and their cronies raped, pillaged and mass-murdered *their own people*, and used chemical weapons against their own frigging people. I mean, seriously, what sort of person can do that, and go to sleep at night? You think it's ok to rape random women off the street, then kill them afterwards, and keep doing this? And look, the whole WMD thing may have been some massive con-job by Hussein perpetrated on Bush and other idiots in the West too willing to believe him, but look, he tried to play poker with them, and lost. That's how it is. He pretended to have them, pretended to give concessions, and played games back and forth with weapons inspectors.
  His own people were all too willing to hang him for his crimes. That's got to tell you something. As horrific as he was, I still don't believe in the death penalty, but that's got to tell you something.
  So sure, people argue, oh, there's heaps of oppressive regimes, it's not our job to be the world's police, blah blah, let them sort out their own problems. Oh, and we wasted billions on this war, that we could have spend on our own people. Then you turn around and say it was all about profit, and Big Oil. Please, considering the billions ploughed in to eradicate this tyrant, and rebuild the country, it would have been cheaper to just buy the damn stuff. You can't have it both ways - either it was an idealistic war fought that was none of our business, or it was some cynical profit-driven war of convenience.
  Personally, I'm of the opinion that Bush and his gang, whilst not the brightest bulbs in the bunch, actually didn't like Hussein, and just really wanted to topple the stupid son of a b*tch. You can argue that it was a stupid thing to do, and a waste of resources, but I don't think anybody would argue that the world's not better off without him. I bet if Bush thought he could take down Kim Il Jong, without risking nuclear recriminations, he wouldn't have thought twice. Sure, it's a bit of a black-and-white view of the world, and some would say a bit primitive, but I challenge anybody to actually tell me they think that these two clowns are good men, who really look out for their people.
  Cheers, Victor
38. Re:Soooo.... by victorhooi · 2010-01-31 17:52 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  heya,
  Err, because Bush and his ilk saw the world in a very black-and-white world, and thought Saddam Hussein was an evil twat, who should be removed? And unlike Kim Il Jong, they could probably do it (or so they thought) quickly and easily, without risk of nuclear recriminations? And because Hussein was universally hated by pretty much everybody in his country for raping, pillaging, and gassing his way across the land?
  Cheers, Victor
39. Re:Soooo.... by IorDMUX · 2010-01-31 17:55 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The American people chose to go to war by supporting Bush.
  Except for the part where Bush originally ran on a platform of non-intervention, diplomatic involvement, and "we are not the world's police force".
  
  Not that I enjoyed a single thing the guy did while crash landing my country over eight years, but you should see John Stewart's Bush vs. Bush debate, comparing the things he said on the campaign trail to the rhetoric he took in office. I know that politician campaign promises have a snowball's chance of making it into reality during their term, but I have never--not even with Obama and government openness--seen such a turnaround as Bush made on foreign policy... Bush didn't just fail to keep his promises, he made totally new ones. It's like some sort of presidential mental breakdown followed shortly after 9/11.
  
  Now, 2004? Well, there was no excuse for that except Kerry rolling a 1 on his Diplomacy check.
  
  --
  >> Standing on head makes smile of frown, but rest of face also upside down.
40. Re:Soooo.... by IorDMUX · 2010-01-31 18:04 · Score: 1
  
  It's thermodynamics, you can't make capital out of thin air.
  Yes, you can. That's the whole basis of economics.
  
  If I purchase a block of stone for $100 from a quarry and tools for $100 from a smith, and then proceed to carve a statue that is valued at and purchased for $1000, I have just added $800 to the economy. It doesn't matter the number of green bills or gold coins that are floating around, value is *created* in an economy just like that.
  
  That is how the stock market works. It is a network of investment that allows for increased economic growth and better returns for all parties, rather than each business standing alone. Why do you think the Great Depression hurt the average American so badly? If what you said is true, then the Great Depression should have been a boon to the common worker as the "capital" would have flowed out of the hands of the big companies in the stock market and to "Main street". But that is not what happened. For the same reason, a non-bubble surge in the stock market indicates a real increase in wealth throughout the economy.
  
  --
  >> Standing on head makes smile of frown, but rest of face also upside down.
41. Re:Soooo.... by IorDMUX · 2010-01-31 18:13 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Don't forget about dropping nuclear weapons in the center of heavily populated civilian centers with no military targets whatsoever. [emphasis added]
  Morality of the atomic bombing aside, that is not a factual statement. Japan had a policy of merging the civilian and military throughout the war, to the point of surrounding potential bombing targets with captured British and American POW's lined up for slaughter.
  
  From Wikipedia:
  
  Nagasaki:
  
  The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials.
  Hiroshima:
  
  A number of military camps were located nearby, including the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops.
  Debate is good, just be sure to get your facts straight.
  
  --
  >> Standing on head makes smile of frown, but rest of face also upside down.
42. Re:Soooo.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 18:32 · Score: 0
  
  But curiously, not the courage to claim your comment with an account name.
  Like "PopeRatzo" tells us who YOU really are.
43. Re:Soooo.... by NoOneInParticular · 2010-01-31 19:20 · Score: 1
  
  Given that the costs of war in Iraq are carried by the American people, and the profits by the American rich, I'm sure oil was not the primary reason for the war.
44. Re:Soooo.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 19:24 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  At least partly because of long standing ties to Al Qaeda and Saddam's regime in Iraq. The first truck-bomb attack on the World Trade Center was due at least in part to training given by Iraqi intelligence to Al Qaeda members. While there has never been a link shown between Iraq and 9/11 directly (of course nobody has claimed such either, especially Cheney) and because U.N. weapons inspectors believed that if Iraq did not have WMD's they had programs waiting to be started up as soon as the U.N. was no longer looking, and that's just *if* they didn't have them already. We did find such weapons after invasion, no huge stockpiles but we did find some, and what was found is consistent with stockpiles having to be moved on very short notice with a few barrels or war-heads not finding space on trucks and being left in warehouses across Iraq. It is very likely that the rest of the contents of those warehouses were what was on the convoys of trucks seen driving over the border into Syria. Also if you want to believe that the Bush administration made up the "WMD's" bit to legitimize the war, then you also have to believe that the Clinton administration was complicit in that ruse years earlier for indicting Osama Bin Laden for attempting to purchase WMD's from Iraq, an act that requires sworn eye witness testimony. So "no Weapons of Mass Destruction hasn't really panned out either.
  In short we went to war in Iraq because of a history of helping an organization that had been at war with us for about a decade, the U.N. weapons inspectors belief that Iraq had weapons programs waiting to be started as soon as scrutiny eased if they did not have stockpiles of weapons already.
  Why are we still there? I'm sure oil is was a motivator for staying, but it's kind of daft to think it's that simple. My theory is that we stayed to build up Iraq into a middle eastern democracy with friendly ties to the U.S. and that also had a bunch of oil.
  As far as all those other nations on the verge of civil war, that's not relevant, much the same way no one got involved in our civil war, though England was about to help the south (cheap cotton) until slavery was abolished, which would have turned that into a bad political move. As far as all the other oppressed nations, none of them gave aid to an organization conducting a war against the U.S. Also there's the old adage that 'you have to pick your fights,' to take on *all* of the oppressive regimes in the world would stretch us too thin and would become a P.R. nightmare no matter how noble the intent was. Any innocent casualties, as well as any casualties that can be made to appear innocent on the news coverage, would be held against us and used to hurt our geopolitical standing. Look at Vietnam. All anyone knows about is all the innocent villages that got burned down, taking someone else's word for it the whole time. Nobody remembers that the U.S. made a promise to South Vietnam to stay there until North Vietnam was no longer a threat. Nobody remembers either, that 2 million innocent people died as a result of our decision to leave Vietnam, or that the war was started to stop the militarized spread of communism (google Yuri Bezmenov to hear how communism was spread, he was one of the guys doing it until he defected. I believe his video is still hosted on Metacafe).
  So pretty much everything you've ever heard about "Iraq was bad and Bush is evil" has been ignoring vast amounts of facts about the whole thing. Is it as simple as "the U.S. are heroes and evil doers can suck it?" No, but it's not nearly as simple as "oil" either. We did, in fact, have a legitimate reason to wage a war against Saddam Husein's government. Of course just like in Vietnam, the whole endeavor has been bungled by those individuals who straddle the line between strategist and politician.
45. Re:Soooo.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 19:38 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Yes, the western corporate world WANTS a piece of China's market. But, the idiots don't realize that China is quietly eroding the west's traditional market in the "3rd world", and at the same time, impairing the west's ability to even produce anything to sell. Whatever lands in China, belongs to China - copyrighted material, patented material, machinery is reverse engineered and reproduced, processing methods are duplicated, everything. If you bring it to China, it belongs to China, no matter what some worthless contract might say. Corporate talking heads need to take another look at their worthless contracts. Bottom line says, "You supply the technology, the skills, and the necessary hardware, we'll supply the cheap labor, and the profits belong to us. Any attempt to cancel this contract voids any claim that you had to your technology, your skills, and your hardware, which all reverts to governmental ownership."
  Seriously, you need paranoid lawyers who understand Chinese law to really examine those contracts. They don't say what all those idiots with dreams of fabulous wealth THINK they say.
46. Re:Soooo.... by phantomfive · 2010-01-31 19:50 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Except for the part where Bush originally ran on a platform of non-intervention, diplomatic involvement, and "we are not the world's police force".
  
  That wasn't when they chose to go to war. Before the Iraq war, around 80% of Americans favored invasion. The pressure from the public was great enough that most congressmen felt obligated to vote for it. Politicians don't only look backwards at what they said in the previous election, they are also looking forward to the next election, so they are responsive to things voters feel strongly about.
  
  At the time I was really upset at Bush because I thought he was pushing America in a direction we didn't want to go. My eyes were opened to the truth when a commentator said, "Protesters are saying, 'no blood for oil', but a lot of Americans would answer that, 'why not?" American citizens bear responsibility for the war. Bush led the way, but America had to follow.
  
  --
  Qxe4
47. Re:Soooo.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 20:06 · Score: 0
  
  It's simple, really. The primary, if not admitted, reason for the war was to ensure the flow of oil.
  Google "Iran auction oil contract" or some similar set of terms.
  Iran auctioned off contracts to pump the oil out of existing oil fields, and they wanted the bidder to pump oil at the rate of $2/barrel. Western companies basically boycotted the auctions, UNTIL Chinese interests started taking the contracts. The west did a double take, and realized that the balance of power would shift dramatically if China got ALL the oil in Iraq. At this point, British Petroleum, Exxon, and some smaller companies fell over each other racing to the auctions.
  Might I mention that British Petroleum is the very same company which sparked off Operation Ajax about 50 years ago? Go ahead - google Operation Ajax if you're not familiar with it.
  Most people recognize that oil is money in today's world, but few realize that oil also is POWER. Political power, as well as economic power. He who controls the flow of oil has tremendous power.
48. Re:Soooo.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 20:26 · Score: 0
  
  "it's not a competition that China wants to have."
  China's sins, all stacked up together, compared to the colonialists from the west, all stacked up together. Hmmm. I wonder. Maybe China wouldn't come off so badly in such a competition after all?
  Look dude, I'm an American, and I'm mostly proud of my country. But let's not forget that our shit stinks just like anyone else's - including China. You mentioned Viet Nam. That little fracas was SOLD to the American public, and American politicians, by the CIA on false pretenses.
  http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1958
  http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB284/index.htm
  The US wasn't even interested in fighting in Vietnam, until the CIA staged a mock attack on some boats in the Gulf of Tonkin, Complete with graphic images passed around in Congress, to help persuade reluctant congress critters.. Only then did the US become outraged at the North. To put this all in context - McCarthyism was on the rise while the CIA was laying the groundwork for the Vietnam war.
  So, go ahead. Tally up all the evils of the Chinese, tally up all the evil that the west has done in China, and compare. I invite you to. No, China won't come off looking good at all, but the US, UK, and France bears a lot of responsibility for what has happened there. Bottom line? Our shit stinks just as bad as anyone's.
49. Re:Soooo.... by BlueTrin · 2010-01-31 21:14 · Score: 1
  
  I think your post is quite naive, you supposed that the right people will suffer in 20 years time.
  
  However the perpetrators and the persons who were in charge are unlikely to be arrested or suffer the direct consequences in 20 years time.
  
  --
  Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
50. Re:Soooo.... by walshy007 · 2010-01-31 21:15 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Saddam Hussein was a appalling leader, I don't think anybody would argue against that.
  It would be hard to argue that he wasn't a rather bad person, however considering the circumstances of the country he did at least manage to keep the peace a lot more than after his removal... it was an all out blood bath after he was taken out.
  
  His own people were all too willing to hang him for his crimes.
  And you think there aren't people who'd like to see bush hanged within the US? At suddams trial they removed the first judge because they didn't like what he was saying, replacing him with a one that was more likely to give them the result they wanted.. the trial was a farce.
  
  but I don't think anybody would argue that the world's not better off without him.
  If there were less violent deaths after he was taken out I'd agree with you, but more people died in the year after his removal than had the whole decade before at his hands. That isn't to say he shouldn't have been removed from power.. but it shouldn't have necessarily been done the way it was.
  
  Sure, it's a bit of a black-and-white view of the world, and some would say a bit primitive, but I challenge anybody to actually tell me they think that these two clowns are good men, who really look out for their people.
  
  Every leader looks out for their people to at least a certain extent, there are only so many people you can piss off before even the military rebel and you get your ass handed to you. If you had two sects of the same religion at war within your country how well do you think you could stop them from killing each other while retaining freedom of the people? It's not as easy as it sounds.
  Things aren't as simple as you think. Many factors contribute to what comes to pass.
51. Re:Soooo.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 21:43 · Score: 0
  
  That wasn't when they chose to go to war. Before the Iraq war, around 80% of Americans favored invasion. The pressure from the public was great enough that most congressmen felt obligated to vote for it. Politicians don't only look backwards at what they said in the previous election, they are also looking forward to the next election, so they are responsive to things voters feel strongly about.
  And how many people would have changed their mind if they knew the administration was lying to them about "WMDs" to increase support for invasion?
52. Re:Soooo.... by devonbowen · 2010-01-31 22:58 · Score: 1
  
  Immediately before the war American support was around 80%. But before Bush beat the war drums support was less than a majority. When he first mentioned the idea of invading Iraq, he had less than 40%. Bush created that 80% with all his WMD talk. As crazy as it sounds, before Bush's push for Iraq the American people were focused on Bin Laden and Afghanistan.
  Devon
53. Re:Soooo.... by Kagura · 2010-01-31 23:24 · Score: 1
  
  Oil is such a stupid, facile explanation for those wars, I can't believe people think they are reasoning when they come to that conclusion.
  Those of us with more than a lick of sense can't believe all you idiots who still think it wasn't an oil war -- and on behalf of Big Oil, not the U.S. directly. Congratulations, you're a moron.
  Yes, because the U.S. is in control of the Iraqi Government and the U.S. controls all the Iraqi oil fields and when Iraqi oil is sold the money goes to U.S. pockets and the U.S. is not footing its own money to support electricity and water and sewage infrastructure and oh, yeah, don't forget about the oil in Iraq that the U.S. corporations now own... also Iraq is the 51st state in the Union...
  
  Now to be serious, my colleagues and I have discussed our opinions with each other, and we've decided that greater facilitation of oil in the region was only a minor reason for going to war, and not a major one. Major reasons are likely vastly increased regional security in the area (Saddam started two belligerent wars in ten years) as well as a buffer to Iran that is friendly to the U.S. (Iraqis in general hate Iran due to the Iraq-Iran war). The vast majority of Iraqis currently like the U.S. and enjoy meeting soldiers face-to-face (which is becoming rarer and rarer), but they are disenchanted with their own government, which they believe is essentially being run by Iran. The war was only supposed to last a couple months in the original vision and then be over, but things are finally starting to calm down after the climax in 2006/2007, and people's lives have already begun turning back to normal.
54. Re:Soooo.... by CarbonShell · 2010-02-01 00:37 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously, have you ever thought about comparing the distance between industry and civilian structure in ANY country?
  The are ALL near each other.
  Might come as a surprise, but industries are always close to towns because they need PEOPLE to operate and being far from the homes of the people is VERY counter productive.
  Back in the day, not everyone had a car and most would travel by bike, bus or tram.
  Not to mention it was typical for industries to provide housing and other infrastructure for their employees. And where better to place them then NEAR the plants.
  Finally, towns grow and when something, like available jobs, are more abundant in one town, people move there.
  Look at towns around you, some have shrunk, some have grown. What used to be on the edge of town now is in the suburbs.
  You make it sound like some evil plan when it is just really simple logic.
55. Re:Soooo.... by PopeRatzo · 2010-02-01 01:20 · Score: 1
  
  Our shit stinks just as bad as anyone's.
  That was the point of my comment.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
56. Re:Soooo.... by Risen888 · 2010-02-01 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  Oil prices hit record highs after the Iraq invasion. Everyone remembers $4 a gallon at the pump in '08.
  "Opened up the flow of oil?" We most certainly did not.
  
  --
  Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
57. Re:Soooo.... by Risen888 · 2010-02-01 02:06 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Your caps lock is stuck.
  
  --
  Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
58. Re:Soooo.... by swb · 2010-02-01 04:11 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I'm always puzzled why our military is "terrible" at fighting a guerrilla/insurgency.
  I've read a number of the articles in newspapers where they go along with a patrol, invariably get attacked, and someone from the patrol is quoted as saying the village/building is constant source of sniper fire or an operations base for some local group of insurgents.
  It seems to me our "humanity" gets in the way of fighting wars. Were this a Roman campaign, the men in the village would all be killed and the women and children hauled back to Rome as slaves. The village would be burned to the ground and the crops looted or torched.
  Rome subdued most of Europe with this strategy.
  If we're there to fight, we should be willing to dish out this level of brutality. How many villages have to get wiped off the map before people stop being willing to cooperate with the insurgency? Villages that cooperate should get whatever support we can give them (building materials and assistance, medical care, etc).
  I've even read at least one story about post-WWII Germany where "Werewolf" resistance fighters sniped at an American unit entering a village; the American response? Pull out a 1-2 KM and indiscriminately shell the village overnight. By morning, the resistance leaders were either bound or dead in the village square.
  Yes, I realize that a lot of "innocent" people get killed. It's extremely cruel. But respecting humanity and extending an occupation 10+ years isn't?
59. Re:Soooo.... by gestalt_n_pepper · 2010-02-01 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  You're kidding, right?
  There are huge outrages and far nastier dictators planetwide. Do we make any attempt to "bring democracy" to countries like say.... Darfur? No. Why do you think that is? Just coincidence that we decided to intervene in the one region on earth with the most accessible oil?
  And if you haven't considered the economic and political implications of scarcer, more expensive oil, I suggest you review "PowerDown," visit "theoildrum.com" and educate yourself on the geopolitics of energy supply in general (Hint: It's not about quantity of oil. It's about energy return at an affordable price and without collateral damage).
  
  --
  Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
60. Re:Soooo.... by phantomfive · 2010-02-01 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  True, a lot of people feel like Bush deceived them. Hopefully next time a president tries to push us to war, they will realize their responsibility and look at the situation a little more closely.
  
  --
  Qxe4
61. Re:Soooo.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-01 07:19 · Score: 0
  
  "Big or not so big" corporations have always killed, directly or indirectly. It's thermodynamics, you can't make capital out of thin air.
  ...
  Disclaimer: I'm not a commie, just a philosopher.
  Well, commie or not, you are not a very good philosopher. For an excellent summation of the reasons why you are an idiot, please read IorDMUX's response. It pretty much covers why your base assumptions are completely wrong. With failings of logic as enormous as your post contains, I doubt you'll be able to assimilate his wisdom.
62. Re:Soooo.... by hey! · 2010-02-01 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think it was about oil. What were they going to do with it, other than sell it? Oil is more or less fungible, so it doesn't matter who they choose to sell it to. The best choice for them would have been to sell it on the market.
  So that's a simplification.
  The earliest recognizable trial balloons about invading Iraq I remember were from June 2002 -- about eight months after 9/11. It was old Rummy, I believe, and as I recall it was couched in such vague terms it could only have been a trial balloon. That made my ears prick up. First, in the context of the Afghan war and the difficulty in getting anything done on the domestic security front, it was puzzling that the administration was dropping hints that it was going to do something in Iraq. Second floating vague political trial balloons is not how you respond to a serious security threat. You state it clearly and you take action.
  Given that, I thought there was a political reason to be talking about Iraq. Subsequent behavior confirmed this in my mind. Whenever given a chance to address some concern raised in, say, an interview, it was never the case that that concern was *not* a reason for going to war, no matter what that concern might be. So the administration was building a political case for invading Iraq from the earliest moment possible.
  As to why, that's a mystery to me. It certainly wasn't because we were afraid Sadaam wouldn't sell his oil. If I had to guess, and this is just a guess, it was more about contracts to rebuild and operate Iraq's oil infrastructure. Those contracts would have gone to Russia. That not only benefited competitors to companies with ties to the US, it extended Russian influence in the region.
  Every other explanation I've heard only makes sense if you assume everybody in the Bush administration was a total moron. If you look at them as slick operators who were nonetheless out of their depth in international affairs (your basic CEO who knows how to game peopel but is weak on the details of his business), the contracting motive seems the most plausible. It's even almost a defensible motivation if you take a certain narrow view of American national interests.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
63. Re:Soooo.... by Xaositecte · 2010-02-01 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  This is exactly why we're so terrible at fighting a Guerilla war. Our political objectives (occupy the country, win hearts and minds, avoid losing face with the international community) don't mesh with our military objectives (putting down the insurgency).
64. Re:Soooo.... by frank_adrian314159 · 2010-02-01 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  Iraq was (supposedly, I'm not an authority on this) a failing state before we even moved in, and if it had fallen apart on its own the most likely successor would either be an official Iranian invasion, or an Iranian puppet government...
  Give the man a cigar. He gets it right. However, had the state fallen apart, the Iranians would have had a hell of a time (re-)creating order and taking control. Now that we've put the majority Shia in charge, our "friends" like Chalabi will see that the transition to Iranian puppet-state will be made much more smoothly. All we did was speed up the process by seven-to-twenty years. The question, of course, is who would gain from that? Quick answer: Building Iran's influence while looking like we're containing it is really good for certain industries, while still giving cover for hawkish politicians.
  
  --
  That is all.
65. Re:Soooo.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-01 09:25 · Score: 0
  
  I guest you know better than Robert McNamara who in the documental "The Fog of War" by Errol Morris (when explaining proportionality must be a war goal) recall the General Curtis LeMay saying having dropped the bomb, if they have lost the war, justified beeing trialed like criminals (because japan was offering to surrender since several months before)
  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317910/
66. Re:Soooo.... by cffrost · 2010-02-02 22:15 · Score: 1
  
  I'm trying to come up with a single case where "nationalism" turned out to be a good thing.
  I'm still thinking, but maybe somebody can offer one.
  US/Soviet "space race?"
  Olympic spectacle/tourism?
  
  --
  Thank you, Edward Snowden.
  
  "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
Of course... by Darkness404 · 2010-01-31 10:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

Of course no one wants to bring up politics in an interview. When companies do, or even have speculation about certain political affiliations usually they are boycotted by one group or another.

--
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
nerd? by MickyTheIdiot · 2010-01-31 10:38 · Score: 5, Funny

Davros is attacking a meeting of world leaders?
It seems like the Daleks are always doing that. That gods Jon Pertwee was there before. What are we going to do now?
1. Re:nerd? by Dachannien · 2010-01-31 10:44 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It seems like the Daleks are always doing that. That gods Jon Pertwee was there before. What are we going to do now?
  I suggest reversing the polarity. It's always worked before.
2. Re:nerd? by CarbonShell · 2010-02-01 00:38 · Score: 1
  
  Sonic screwdriver FTW!
Remember What Secretary of State Clintain Said by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 10:38 · Score: 0

it's NOT about ( establishing) human rights in China. ( it's about money ) .
Yours In Astakhan,
K. Trout
1. Re:Remember What Secretary of State Clintain Said by MickyTheIdiot · 2010-01-31 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  an so it goes...
Disclosure At the Table by cosm · 2010-01-31 10:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

This just goes to show what levels of disclosure and topics of discussion will be sacrificed in the name of securing commercial and privatized interest. Business as usual, nothing to see here folks, move along...

This is the nature of the beast, and the trend in globalization. I am seeing countries continually regressing in the moral and ethical obligations, a degradation of honesty, transparency, and openness all in the name of making more money. Will we ever see the end of these practices? I don't believe in my lifetime, if ever.

--
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
1. Re:Disclosure At the Table by the+eric+conspiracy · 2010-01-31 10:42 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  A fundamental question here is whether or not commercial interests will also influence political decision making to the point where war becomes untenable because of the disruption it will cause to commerce.
2. Re:Disclosure At the Table by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 10:48 · Score: 0
  
  Limited war is good for business.
3. Re:Disclosure At the Table by Paktu · 2010-01-31 10:54 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I am seeing countries continually regressing in the moral and ethical obligations, a degradation of honesty, transparency, and openness all in the name of making more money. I hear this mantra repeated on /. and elsewhere that the whole world is in moral and ethical decline. Really? Please give me a time period, anytime in world history, where nations were upstanding, moral, open, and fair to everyone. It's fine if you want to argue that globalization has negative consequences that outweigh its positive effects. But don't act like there was some bygone golden age in the past where everything was awesome. Societies act solely in their own self interest, always have, always will.
4. Re:Disclosure At the Table by cosm · 2010-01-31 11:19 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I had a feeling I would get at least one response along these lines. Let me clarify the situation, IMO.
  
  "continually regressing in the moral and ethical obligations"
  I am not proclaiming that there was a bygone golden age where everything was awesome. The word "regress" was chosen carefully for the sole fact that, yes, in this year 2010, there has been significant progress made in the United States and across the world in regards to the treatment of humanity on an ethical and moral scale. Each year that transpires produces an ever increasing sum of philosophical ideologies that could increase the standard of living for most of mankind. Amidst these discoveries and continual improvements by societies intellectuals, world governments continually ignore or simply forget these quality addendum's to the standard moral code of human life in the sake of profit. There never was a golden age of humanity. There probably never will be. But the fact remains that countless individuals and organizations refine and better our understanding of sociological problems on a yearly basis, yet world governments pay little to no regard to these developments.
  
  So, this "mantra" rings true in my opinion. In a world that is always increasing its intellectual capabilities through technology, increasing its ability to disseminate academic information, increasing its ability to research, study, examine, and postulate different solutions to different problems, there is a moral and ethical decline in part of the governments, and it is in fact a regression, a back tracking, a one-step-forward-to-steps-back, because it seems regardless of any ideological developments being made, their implementation is residually ignored over time in leu of the motivation of profit.
  
  --
  'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
5. Re:Disclosure At the Table by furbyhater · 2010-01-31 11:21 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Waging war is like continuously hitting the jackpot for the part of the economy profiting from the vastly increased military spending.
6. Re:Disclosure At the Table by furbyhater · 2010-01-31 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  The problem are people acting solely out of self-interest while disregarding the impact of their actions to the rest of society.
7. Re:Disclosure At the Table by Nerdfest · 2010-01-31 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  Personally, I would have hoped that humanity would get better. We seem to be staying the same at best, with even that being questionable.
8. Re:Disclosure At the Table by TheNarrator · 2010-01-31 11:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  China's strategy for regaining it's hegemonic strategy is pretty simple and utilizes a basic weakness in American democracy.
  U.S Corporate lobbyists command massive influence politics in the united states.
  U.S lobbyists are controlled by U.S corporations.
  China can easily exert influence over U.S corporations by giving them preferential or non-preferential treatment with their China operations. They can even tell them to get their lobbyists to tell the politicians in Washington to do what China wants.
  Therefore China can easily exert influence on Washington.
9. Re:Disclosure At the Table by Opportunist · 2010-01-31 11:57 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, then let's maybe say they're regressing in honesty. At least the emperors and kings didn't claim they gave half a shit about their people's opinion, and exploiting colonies was fair game, after all, we gave them civilisation (we call it freedom today, but it's still the same BS).
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
10. Re:Disclosure At the Table by ajs · 2010-01-31 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  This just goes to show what levels of disclosure and topics of discussion will be sacrificed in the name of securing commercial and privatized interest. Business as usual, nothing to see here folks, move along...
  Google has been very vocal and very public about this. If they were staying mum to secure their business interests, then they really, really screwed up.
  Only in the politics of global business news would holding a press conference that triggered comments from both your own Secretary of State and China's official news outlet and then letting that play out rather than continue to rant, be considered "staying quiet."
11. Re:Disclosure At the Table by ajs · 2010-01-31 12:21 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  there has been significant progress made in the United States and across the world in regards to the treatment of humanity on an ethical and moral scale.
  No, there has not.
  I just don't buy it.
  
  the fact remains that countless individuals and organizations refine and better our understanding of sociological problems on a yearly basis, yet world governments pay little to no regard to these developments.
  As far as I can tell, this is a null statement. You've actually made no claim here that can be proved or disproved. Care to try again?
  
  In a world that is always increasing its intellectual capabilities through technology, increasing its ability to disseminate academic information, increasing its ability to research, study, examine, and postulate different solutions to different problems, there is a moral and ethical decline in part of the governments, and it is in fact a regression, a back tracking, a one-step-forward-to-steps-back, because it seems regardless of any ideological developments being made, their implementation is residually ignored over time in leu of the motivation of profit.
  Your thesis here seems to be "we can communicate better, so the fact that the world hasn't become a better place is an ethical regression." Unless I've misunderstood what you were trying to say, I think you've just re-defined all of your terminology in ways that are not compatible with English.
12. Re:Disclosure At the Table by iammani · 2010-01-31 13:12 · Score: 1
  
  Its like claiming ignorance was bliss. :)
  
  When people grow up they become more and more aware of inethical behavior happening in various parts of the world (including the ones happening at their own country/neighborhood). They have an uneasy feeling about these and wish the world was as good as before (ie, wish the world would be as they imagined when they ignorant).
  
  I bet if given the option, quite a lot of people will prefer ignorance to awareness/knowledge.
13. Re:Disclosure At the Table by PopeRatzo · 2010-01-31 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  A fundamental question here is whether or not commercial interests will also influence political decision making to the point where war becomes untenable because of the disruption it will cause to commerce.
  A more fundamental question is whether or not commercial interest will also influence political decision making to the point where politics, free speech, free thought and any public protest becomes untenable because of the disruption it will cause to commerce.
  I don't think the biggest corporations worry that much about war being bad for business. War hasn't been bad for business so far, why should it start now?
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
14. Re:Disclosure At the Table by salesgeek · 2010-01-31 14:03 · Score: 1
  
  I am seeing countries continually regressing in the moral and ethical obligations, a degradation of honesty, transparency, and openness all in the name of making more money.
  You've obviously skipped political science and political philosophy courses. There are a few things that have not changed since man started scraping symbols on stone tablets:
  * Justice rarely triumphs over power.
  * The victor writes the history books.
  * Self interest is the only value that matters to nation-states.
  Don't plan on it changing because we are using electrons instead of chisels.
  One might argue that the 20th century was the least repressive in history with the democratization of the west, the end of most slavery, and the establishment of the UN, GATT and World Court. Of course, this does not mean that the world is not a very brutal, oppressive place.
  Oh, and transparency does not mean what all you transparency idiots think it does. It has opposite meanings: invisible and "not hiding anything". Unfortunately, when a political leader says "we are being transparent" you have no clue which meaning they intend. "Transparency" is the most perfect "double-speak" word in history. Of course, my ranting won't stop the Starbuckistan delegation to the UN from demanding more transparency.
  
  --
  -- $G
15. Re:Disclosure At the Table by hackingbear · 2010-01-31 14:14 · Score: 1
  
  The word "regress" was chosen carefully for the sole fact that, yes, in this year 2010, there has been significant progress made in the United States and across the world in regards to the treatment of humanity on an ethical and moral scale.
  The same can be said for nation in the center of this -- China. It may sound like news to you given that you only have censored front-page news. No matter how bad you think China's human rights situation is today, it is still much much better than 30 years ago or earlier, comparing to periods like Cultural Revolution or Great Leap Forward or the Qing Dynasty. It may not be up to the American standard (which wasn't that good either before the 1960's); but calling it regressive is simply ignorant. And most of the progress should be attributed to their international trades.
16. Re:Disclosure At the Table by hackingbear · 2010-01-31 14:33 · Score: 1
  
  Google has been very vocal and very public about this.
  really
17. Re:Disclosure At the Table by twotailakitsune · 2010-01-31 14:45 · Score: 1
  
  1 mil BC.
18. Re:Disclosure At the Table by BearRanger · 2010-01-31 14:49 · Score: 1
  
  That's because he who pays the piper calls the tune. I'm sure you didn't miss the part of the article that states that China holds $789.6 billion in US Treasuries. Whatever moral authority the US had has been traded for cold hard cash. Debt truly is equivalent to slavery in some ways. Governments have to ignore some of their transgressions in order to have access to their cash, and corporations ignore them because they want to market to their large populace. Since you can't trust either to take a stand for morality and ethics that just leaves the rest of us. If you don't like how China conducts itself in these matters stop rewarding them. Don't buy products made there. It won't be easy to do, but it's about the only concrete thing individuals can do about it.
19. Re:Disclosure At the Table by drinkypoo · 2010-01-31 15:24 · Score: 1
  
  At least the emperors and kings didn't claim they gave half a shit about their people's opinion,
  
  That's a load of dingo's kidneys. No king ever ruled long solely through fear. If your supporters are wondering who's next, things go to hell very quickly. And you get levies from lands, and the lands are worked by peasants, so if you want to collect levies, you need productive peasants. Kings pretended to care about people all the time.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
20. Re:Disclosure At the Table by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 15:27 · Score: 0
  
  This is the nature of the beast, and the trend in globalization. I am seeing countries continually regressing in the moral and ethical obligations, a degradation of honesty, transparency, and openness
  Be realistic. Nobody wants open confrontation on a scale that provokes violence. Things are far better settled with back room negotiations, a little public humiliation and some secret slight of hand.
  But if the lack of transparency and openness are not to your liking, pick up a rifle and go to Afghanistan.
21. Re:Disclosure At the Table by drinkypoo · 2010-01-31 15:27 · Score: 1
  
  It should be painfully obvious by now that war is good for some businesses. There are numerous industries which profit directly. Also, can you imagine what it would be like if one corporation could simply attack another with weapons instead of having to do it through the market?
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
22. Re:Disclosure At the Table by RLiegh · 2010-01-31 15:42 · Score: 1
  
  I bet if given the option, quite a lot of people will prefer ignorance to awareness/knowledge.
  No bet. The popularity of outlets such as Fox "News" proves you right.
23. Re:Disclosure At the Table by introspekt.i · 2010-01-31 16:33 · Score: 1
  
  I hear Atlantis was pretty sweet.
24. Re:Disclosure At the Table by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 19:08 · Score: 0
  
  there has been significant progress made in the United States and across the world in regards to the treatment of humanity on an ethical and moral scale.
  No, there has not.
  I just don't buy it.
  What!?
  I guess you could argue that everyone is just as racist, sexist, and xenophobic as they were 30 years ago, but to completely deny the validity of that statement leaves me questioning your motivation for commenting.
25. Re:Disclosure At the Table by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 20:21 · Score: 0
  
  there has been significant progress made in the United States and across the world in regards to the treatment of humanity on an ethical and moral scale.
  No, there has not.
  I just don't buy it.
  Prove it.
26. Re:Disclosure At the Table by CAIMLAS · 2010-01-31 20:44 · Score: 1
  
  It has nothing to do with globalization, per se, except it's the ultimate result of globalization's culmination. Globalization has run its course and there are no more horses in that barn.
  It has happened before and it will happen again, both on the scale of the individual and the nation: as things get difficult, people change the rules as to what is 'acceptable'. It's perfectly fine to be standing on your high moral horse, but it's also terribly easy to do when things are peachy keen.
  When you're hungry, your family is hungry, and you don't know how you're going to feed and shelter your family for the winter, "acceptable" is viewed in terms of losses, not morality: can you pull it off and come out ahead, or at least maintain your status quo. Taking the moral high ground and not killing your neighbor in his sleep might be difficult if you know he's got a wood stove and a store of cured foods.
  When it's easy to come out ahead, those choices don't need to be made. You can go to your 9 to 5 job, come home, crack open a beer. You're not struggling just for food, and that rent check isn't 2 days late because you had to hawk off some valuables to make it.
  As a group, humans are very good at taking care of ourselves in the short term. We'll do what we think will allow us to get by, survive, and thrive. If we don't we either survive and get stronger/learn from our mistakes, or we fall by the wayside.
  
  --
  ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
27. Re:Disclosure At the Table by CAIMLAS · 2010-01-31 20:51 · Score: 1
  
  There has been an increase in laws regulating (or more accurately, punishing the lack of) the moral treatment of others in the West for hundreds of years.
  People, however, are still shit, as a populace. To the exception of the few bright lights out there, we're all a bunch of assholes looking out for ourselves.
  
  --
  ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
28. Re:Disclosure At the Table by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 21:11 · Score: 0
  
  Waging war is like continuously hitting the jackpot for the part of the economy profiting from the vastly increased military spending.
  Ummm, exactly how does an economy profit from war when rapine and plunder are excluded? For the two major occupations that the US is involved in, there's been no real desire on the part of the politicians that gave GW the power to do 'whatevs he wants' to send a bill to Afghanistan or Iraq: "Freedom isn't free, it's a buck o'five," please pay up.
  The basic products of a war are blowing up the products and having very many people running around, which they don't do for free in the US. In order to spend money on the blowing up of the things and the little men running around and their fancy uniforms, the purveyors of war need money; as there is no known infinite supply of money with value (more money can be printed but it's just paper and the value associated with it will be diluted if printing is ramped up, as any Harvard MBA should be able to tell you, so printing more to fund production of things to be blown up doesn't help the economy), and most modern purveyors of war don't have ginormous, or any real savings to support a war, they must tax and issue bonds to support the war both of which negatively impact the economy.
  So, how again is waging war 'like continuously hitting the jackpot for the part of the economy profiting from the vastly increased military spending', if the money doesn't come from the vanquished then it's got to come from the victor? The economy in post-WWI and WWII europe must have been like nothing ever seen before, wait it was, it was totally decimated; perhaps that was just due to greedy global corporate profiteers?
  Please think before spewing sound bytes, they're quite trite, as the poet put it.
29. Re:Disclosure At the Table by Xest · 2010-01-31 21:40 · Score: 1
  
  I think the issue is that these things don't increase in a straight line, you get peaks and troughs, whilst modern Britain is clearly better than medieval Britain for example, I would argue at least that in Britain we are certanly much less free, and there is a lower standard of ethics and morals now than we had back in the 90s.
  The tide does seem to be turning though now, as people in the UK finally get tired of Labour's authoritarianism, and as the European Court of Human Rights rules more and more of Labour's laws as illegal.
  I would argue that the last decade has been quite bad for liberty, ethics, and morals, due to a cominbation of post 9/11 scaremongering, war, and counter-terrorism laws and companies being a little too unregulated. Certainly in the UK, I feel that the culmination of the financial crisis, too many steps too far in different areas by the government, and the MPs expenses scandal here represented a local minimum, and that we are now, hopefully, on a path to improvement with elections looming, people finally being tired of authoritarian Labour, and banks being so unethical they ended up shooting itself in the foot.
  So I agree, the idea that things are worse in general now than they ever have been simply isn't true- things have been much worse, however I also agree that things have gotten markedly worse this last decade than the decade before, but I do not believe the decline is terminal- only a trough in some theoretical graph that could measure these things.
30. Re:Disclosure At the Table by shaka · 2010-01-31 21:48 · Score: 1
  
  I think it's pretty obvious that western democracies are less free and open than they were around the turn of the millennium.
  If we are supposed to set some kind of example for the world, we're doing a lousy job.
  The prime example perhaps being USA:s increased and very public spreading of torture.
  I'm not sure about the GPs analysis that it's all in the name (or spirit) of making more money.
  
  --
  :wq!
31. Re:Disclosure At the Table by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-01 03:16 · Score: 0
  
  Step 1 in a War with China is the USA says "hey China that money we owe you? Yeah, you're never going to see that now"
  Step 2 all assets owned by China in the US are now the property of the US:Gov.
  
  I'd say that a war with China could be rather profitable.
  
  Posting anon because I've used mod points in this thread. -UID: jgtg32a
32. Re:Disclosure At the Table by ajs · 2010-02-01 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  I think it's pretty obvious that western democracies are less free and open than they were around the turn of the millennium.
  No, I don't think that's obvious at all.
  
  If we are supposed to set some kind of example for the world, we're doing a lousy job.
  The prime example perhaps being USA:s increased and very public spreading of torture.
  Which began in the 1990s when Rendition was established as a formal policy of the U.S. government, and let's not forget the School of the Americas in which 1960s-1990s leaders of repressive governments in Central and South America were trained in techniques of supressing their populations including interrogation, crowd and media control and surveillance.
  The 00s are a backslide how? Or were you just not paying attention before 2000?
  
  I'm not sure about the GPs analysis that it's all in the name (or spirit) of making more money.
  Power (money being one form of power) is the root of all international discourse. There is, in fact, no need for such discourse except to extend, maintain or influence power. So yes, the claim that international abuse is about money (and other forms of power) is quite true.
33. Re:Disclosure At the Table by adamkennedy · 2010-02-02 14:42 · Score: 1
  
  Step 3 China stops making the basics of life for Americans and starts making killbots instead.
  Step 4 Wallmarts all over America close as they run out of goods to sell, only to be repurposed shortly afterwards as regional killbot distribution and maintenance hubs.
The Manchurian Candidate is to GE's presidency, by OpenSourced · 2010-01-31 10:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

People have their commercial interests
Well, yes, I guess that's what was missing in the Cold War. If Russia was making cheap plastic toys for Wal Mart, perhaps the US would have permitted the placement of missiles in Cuba, in order not to make people nervous. Dumb Russians, they really lost the Cold War because of Communism. Chinese are seemingly smarter, and have understood that they can do anything as long as they provide with cheap labor to the West's consumers. I guess in a couple of years they'll be able to invade Taiwan with no more consequences than some really stern speeches from various so-called world leaders.

--
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
1. Re:The Manchurian Candidate is to GE's presidency, by couchslug · 2010-01-31 11:02 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If Russia had been making plastic toys instead of trying to export Stalinist revolution, there WOULDN'T have been anything to fight about.
  "I guess in a couple of years they'll be able to invade Taiwan with no more consequences than some really stern speeches from various so-called world leaders."
  Who the fuck wants to die for Taiwan (excepting bunch of geezers nostalgic for bar girl poonannie) now that the mainland isn't supporting regimes that endanger the West, and why shouldn't the strong in Asia be its masters?
  Do YOU want to die for the Kuomintang? If so, share why, and share why Americans should want their sons and daughters to die too?
  Fuck them. If they wanted to be separate from Beijing they'd acquire nukes instead of consumer goods. The cult of US suicide for Chinese needs to have a stake driven through it's heart. The US has an obligation to AMERICANS it forgot during the fascination with Madame Chiang and Pearl S. Buck propaganda (youngsters, look it up for some fun).
  Time to let Asians run Asia and concentrate on problems we neglected near to home, such as Mexico, and Latin and South America.
  
  --
  "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
2. Re:The Manchurian Candidate is to GE's presidency, by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 11:42 · Score: 0
  
  Do YOU want to die for the Kuomintang? If so, share why, and share why Americans should want their sons and daughters to die too]
  So you are willing to sacrifice your firstborn for the inbred farmers of Intercourse, Kentucky and Armpit, Nebraska who suck you dry with their welfare and farm/corn ethanol subsidies, but you are not willing to stand up for your brothers in arms who held back the communists for the last 60 years and manufacture all your laptops and microchips? Screw you.
  For Gods sake, all it would take is to rent out a handful of nuclear MIRVs to the Taiwanese...
3. Re:The Manchurian Candidate is to GE's presidency, by Opportunist · 2010-01-31 11:59 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Do YOU want to die for the Kuomintang? If so, share why, and share why Americans should want their sons and daughters to die too?
  Nope. But maybe you could shed some light on something, being a foreign politics expert. Why again was it allright for the US sons and daughters to invade Iraq and die there too?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
4. Re:The Manchurian Candidate is to GE's presidency, by goga_russian · 2010-01-31 12:23 · Score: 1
  
  damnit. i never got my Stalin Bobble head doll for +100XP, +5y in Gulag and +3 rad
  
  --
  Dont Judge The situation by the Misfortunate. Goga.
5. Re:The Manchurian Candidate is to GE's presidency, by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 12:35 · Score: 0
  
  Dumb Russians, they really lost the Cold War because of Communism.
  Neither Russia nor China were ever actually socialist/communist. They just used those ideals to gain the support of the people. Kind of like the US is not actually a constitutional democratic republic, but the average brain-dead American believes it is.
6. Re:The Manchurian Candidate is to GE's presidency, by Afforess · 2010-01-31 13:08 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, the US has a legal obligation due to a treaty with the Chinese Nationalists to defend Taiwan. If they get in trouble we HAVE to help them, or no one will ever trust us as a country.
  
  --
  If our elected representatives no longer represent us, do we still live in a Democracy?
7. Re:The Manchurian Candidate is to GE's presidency, by evilviper · 2010-01-31 13:15 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Time to let Asians run Asia and concentrate on problems we neglected near to home
  Ah yes, good old isolationism. Because that's worked out so incredibly well throughout history, right??? Am I right???
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
8. Re:The Manchurian Candidate is to GE's presidency, by drinkypoo · 2010-01-31 15:32 · Score: 1
  
  Fuck them. If they wanted to be separate from Beijing they'd acquire nukes instead of consumer goods.
  
  Riiiight, with all the world's current nuclear powers doing their level best to prevent it? Think again.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
9. Re:The Manchurian Candidate is to GE's presidency, by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-01-31 15:51 · Score: 1
  
  If Russia had been making plastic toys instead of trying to export Stalinist revolution
  What the hell is a "Stalinist revolution"? The one in 1917 in Russia sure as hell wasn't that, since Stalin played a very minor role in it, and policies that came out of it was very different from the direction Stalin took the country once he got to power.
  
  Who the fuck wants to die for Taiwan (excepting bunch of geezers nostalgic for bar girl poonannie) now that the mainland isn't supporting regimes that endanger the West
  Do you seriously believe that PRC is not a credible long-term threat to the West? How about the fact that it cooperates in development of military technology with such Western-friendly countries as Pakistan and Iran?
10. Re:The Manchurian Candidate is to GE's presidency, by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 18:16 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah who cares about Poland anyway. Let's wait till it will cost the world 70 million +.
11. Re:The Manchurian Candidate is to GE's presidency, by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 20:04 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Do YOU want to die for the Kuomintang?
  Hi, sorry, late to the party and posting as an AC, so I don't think this will be read by anyone, but I have the urge to post all the same.
  Do I want to die? No. Would I? Maybe.
  I live in Mainland China. The amount of corruption, of selfishness, of people whose lives have been ruined all for the sake of a dollar is astounding here, and makes the US pale in comparison. You think Enron was bad? That's peanuts compared to the crap people have to take because of simple lack of empathy. I've seen entire neighborhoods razed with the government giving the residents, oh, around 1,000 dollars (which, before you say anything, can't buy another house here regardless of exchange rate) all so a group of people can get another million dollars and cement ties with each other.
  It's really, really bad.
  Taiwan, not so much. Yeah, it's worse than the States, and it's on its way to becoming another Hong Kong, but at least there's a fairly outspoken group of people who are willing to put their foot down against such activities as what I've mentioned above.
  I'm pretty sure I'd be willing to put my life on the line in order to prevent the perversion of another square inch of global soil by Chinese politics.
12. Re:The Manchurian Candidate is to GE's presidency, by grepya · 2010-01-31 20:36 · Score: 1
  
  Do YOU want to die for the Kuomintang? If so, share why, and share why Americans should want their sons and daughters to die too?
  I can't think of how to explain global power politics to you in a short slashdot post. Maybe you should start by buying an actual globe and marking out all the US military bases around the world on that. Much of that that information is known if not explicitly published.
  To put it a bit more explicitly -- No, the US support for Taiwan is not about "caring" for Taiwanese people. It's more or less a huge, non-floating aircraft-carrier available for American use in case of trouble.
13. Re:The Manchurian Candidate is to GE's presidency, by OpenSourced · 2010-01-31 20:40 · Score: 1
  
  If Russia had been making plastic toys instead of trying to export Stalinist revolution, there WOULDN'T have been anything to fight about.
  So, in light of this reasoning, there is no possibility of ever being anything to fight about with China. That's reassuring. I had always thought that having an aggressive dictatorship as government was the root of the problem, not the particular economic model that they followed.
  Taiwan was just an example. If you want another example closer to home, they could blow up yours (home) and nobody would do anything about it either. Morals and the rule of law is what keeps the West living better than, say, Somalia. The more we bend our morals, the nearer we are to an anything-goes situation. There is a ruthless dictatorship in an aggressive country, and we are afraid even to offend them by talking too loud about it.
  
  --
  Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
14. Re:The Manchurian Candidate is to GE's presidency, by CAIMLAS · 2010-01-31 20:55 · Score: 1
  
  Who the fuck wants to die for Taiwan (excepting bunch of geezers nostalgic for bar girl poonannie) now that the mainland isn't supporting regimes that endanger the West, and why shouldn't the strong in Asia be its masters?
  Apparently you aren't aware of the fact that almost all scenarios involving "China takes Taiwan" also tend to start out with "High altitude nuclear explosion cripples US Pacific fleet". Or how such scenarios would likely end with "Due to a taste of victory, China takes over entire region, exploiting its peoples and resources... for China!"
  Don't be the fool who doesn't look at history.
  
  --
  ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
15. Re:The Manchurian Candidate is to GE's presidency, by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 22:38 · Score: 0
  
  If Russia had been making plastic toys instead of trying to export Stalinist revolution, there WOULDN'T have been anything to fight about.
  "I guess in a couple of years they'll be able to invade Taiwan with no more consequences than some really stern speeches from various so-called world leaders."
  Who the fuck wants to die for Taiwan (excepting bunch of geezers nostalgic for bar girl poonannie) now that the mainland isn't supporting regimes that endanger the West, and why shouldn't the strong in Asia be its masters?
  Do YOU want to die for the Kuomintang? If so, share why, and share why Americans should want their sons and daughters to die too?
  Fuck them. If they wanted to be separate from Beijing they'd acquire nukes instead of consumer goods. The cult of US suicide for Chinese needs to have a stake driven through it's heart. The US has an obligation to AMERICANS it forgot during the fascination with Madame Chiang and Pearl S. Buck propaganda (youngsters, look it up for some fun).
  Time to let Asians run Asia and concentrate on problems we neglected near to home, such as Mexico, and Latin and South America.
  Exactly, who cares about "people" who don't live in the same arbitrary nation as me? They barely even count as human, we shouldn't care about them at all.
  USA! USA! USA!
16. Re:The Manchurian Candidate is to GE's presidency, by dunkelfalke · 2010-02-01 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  Dude, comintern was dissolved in 1943, and since Lenin died the official policy was to support other communist countries but to stop trying to export revolution and concentrate on internal problems instead.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
17. Re:The Manchurian Candidate is to GE's presidency, by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-01 02:52 · Score: 0
  
  If they wanted to be separate from Beijing they'd acquire nukes
  What makes you think they haven't?
18. Re:The Manchurian Candidate is to GE's presidency, by WGFCrafty · 2010-02-01 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  Except you cut off the end of the quote:
  
  "Time to let Asians run Asia and concentrate on problems we neglected near to home, such as Mexico, and Latin and South America."
  Doesn't seem that isolated..
Get used to it. by Gorobei · 2010-01-31 10:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

The extent of this attack was unclear, but figure every major US corporate/government net was at risk. Figure any intranet relying exclusively on firewall rules was penetrated (1 man on the inside with a USB rootkit and you are compromised.) Compare the cost of one M1A1 tank to an intern at a US company.
If this was a government sponsored attack, figure half the major US intranets are now compromised to some degree.
1. Re:Get used to it. by Yvanhoe · 2010-01-31 11:11 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Imagine also the impact as an economical attack of Google saying "China won't let foreign companies do profit against local competitors, that's why we pulled up."
  
  --
  The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
2. Re:Get used to it. by Sique · 2010-01-31 11:30 · Score: 1
  
  And imagine how thoroughly bugged anything in China has to be right now, or are you thinking any secret service worth its salt would sit idle and not trying to figure out what's really going on in China?
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
3. Re:Get used to it. by Opportunist · 2010-01-31 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  Sending interns to US companies? Are you nuts, why the expense? Those saps let you produce their hardware and increasingly their software too. They'll even pay you to infect them!
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Google already made their point... by russotto · 2010-01-31 10:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

...by the fact that China had to request that they not talk about it. China had to acknowledge the "elephant in the room" even to avoid talking about it.
might *does* make right by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 10:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

China is already manufacturer to the world, and within a few decades they will lead *everything* - scientific research, they'll be the biggest economy, the biggest market, and the most powerful military.
It's idiocy to get on their bad side or lock yourselves out of their market. Smart players will play by China's rules and not try to upset them.
The thing a lot of people don't get is that morals don't matter in international politics and business. "Might makes right" *does* matter. It's nice to have warm fuzzy morals, but when those morals come up against reality, that and fifty cents will get you a cup of coffee. It's not the "right" side that wins, it's the most powerful side. China knows this - they're nothing if not smart and forward thinking.
The only question is whether the USofA will fall from its position as the world's superpower with any kind of grace, or whether it'll make life hard for everyone else as it falls.
1. Re:might *does* make right by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 11:05 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The only question is whether the USofA will fall from its position as the world's superpower with any kind of grace, or whether it'll make life hard for everyone else as it falls.
  Sorry, no. The real question is whether or not your new Chinese overlords will put up with the same silly European bullshit the US has. I seriously doubt they will.
2. Re:might *does* make right by janimal · 2010-01-31 11:53 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  It's idiocy to get on their bad side or lock yourselves out of their market. Smart players will play by China's rules and not try to upset them.
  The thing a lot of people don't get is that morals don't matter in international politics and business. "Might makes right" *does* matter.
  So, by your logic, the appropriate response to Hitler's Germany was to keep mum, because it was a superpower? By what most commenters to this article in general, it seems it was OK for IBM to supply Hitler the machines for the German census as well. History repeats itself indeed.
3. Re:might *does* make right by Opportunist · 2010-01-31 12:04 · Score: 1
  
  It's idiocy to get on their bad side or lock yourselves out of their market. Smart players will play by China's rules and not try to upset them.
  You mean, China is the new USA? Because 'til now it was "play by the US rules or be shut out of the world economy, look at Cuba for reference".
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
4. Re:might *does* make right by strangelovian · 2010-01-31 12:10 · Score: 1
  
  My theory is that we’re moving into a post-progressive, negative sum, Malthusian paradigm, and China is way ahead of the curve. The neoliberal notion that the U.S. has some supreme model of socioeconomic organization that will inevitably spread to the entire world is looking more and more delusional to me. China plays hardball because they’re smart; the West is led by people like Obama and Clinton who try to be the “good guys”, which the rest of the world interprets as weakness. We’ll eventually wake up when things really start to go downhill and competition for the planet’s remaining resources becomes a matter of survival. That’s when the peaceful acceptance of China’s rise will end, and World War III will begin. Unless one side collapses like the U.S.S.R. did, I see this outcome as almost inevitable.
5. Re:might *does* make right by Oddscurity · 2010-01-31 13:22 · Score: 1
  
  On the bright side, it will finally be the year of the (Red Flag) Linux Desktop. ;)
  
  --
  Indeed!
6. Re:might *does* make right by Bartab · 2010-01-31 13:56 · Score: 1
  
  You mean, China is the new USA? Because 'til now it was "play by the US rules or be shut out of the world economy, look at Cuba for reference".
  You mean the Cuba that regularly exports its only product to the max of its production capacity? Where non party members are not allowed to partake of that product?
  Cuba's economic problems stem from poor economic meddling by a gov't that is also too costly. The US (and ONLY US) embargo doesn't even touch it on a worldwide scale. Dropping that embargo would do nothing, positive or negative, and yet continues to exist because it both major US parties want to appease a large minority faction in Florida.
  However, certain groups in the US should look to Cuba. It's a fine example of the end result of the current trillion dollar per year expansion our gov't is "enjoying".
  
  --
  Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
7. Re:might *does* make right by HaynieMatt · 2010-01-31 14:36 · Score: 1
  
  In a few decades China will be burdened with an enormous Generation of old people and a much smaller working generation. I don't think their future is what we need to worry about.
8. Re:might *does* make right by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 19:52 · Score: 0
  
  If you were IBM's majority shareholder at the time, it would have made sense.
9. Re:might *does* make right by makomk · 2010-02-03 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  You mean the Cuba that regularly exports its only product to the max of its production capacity? Where non party members are not allowed to partake of that product?
  The trouble is that, for example, Cuba would like to be able to import tools and materials too... in fact, if they want to be able to produce more products, they basically have to be able to. Then there's tourism.
Well, duh by Tim+C · 2010-01-31 10:57 · Score: 1

You don't bad-mouth your friends or people you need.
Why would business be any different?

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.
1. Re:Well, duh by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 12:17 · Score: 0
  
  They aren't my friends, and I certainly don't need melamine in my food, or lead, arsenic or other toxins in my kid's toys.
2. Re:Well, duh by ajs · 2010-01-31 12:24 · Score: 1
  
  You don't bad-mouth your friends or people you need.
  Why would business be any different?
  Ah... so your claim, here, is that someone stayed silent? Didn't Google hold a press conference and threaten to pull out of China? Isn't that the ONLY reason we know this happened?
3. Re:Well, duh by Gunstick · 2010-01-31 20:43 · Score: 1
  
  they are NOT my friends!
  And I don't need them to poinson my Kids with dangerous toys.
  
  --
  Atari rules... ermm... ruled.
ARE YOU NOW OR HAVE YOU EVER BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 11:04 · Score: 0

the RED CHINESE?
(Yes.)
Take this woman out back and shoot her.
(I take that back. No.)
(POW!)
Mr. Gates. Are you now or have you ever...
You see... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 11:05 · Score: 0

This whole situation is a lot like a car.
Nuff said...
World Economic Forum co-chair representatives by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 11:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

USA - 4
Germany - 1
India - 1
UK - 1
China - 0
http://www.weforum.org/en/events/AnnualMeeting2010/Sun31/index.htm
Elephant in the room by solferino · 2010-01-31 11:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

Elephant in the room by Banksy.
Elephant in the room by The New Yorker.
Careful! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 11:09 · Score: 2, Funny

> The extent of this attack was unclear
If you were dislexic, a faux pas could start a unclear winter...
even more interesting by NynexNinja · 2010-01-31 11:16 · Score: 1

not to discuss this story after today's story about evidence the chinese government has been hacking britian government and companies for some time.
1. Re:even more interesting by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 11:47 · Score: 0
  
  I have a Huawei router that was given to me as a gift by a friend when I was in Hungary and I haven't used it at all because I'm afraid it contains some kind of backdoor or sniffer. I searched for info on reports of suspicious Huawei products, but couldn't find anything useful. Does anyone here have any info on this?
Ackermann? World leaders? by Hurricane78 · 2010-01-31 11:17 · Score: 1

Josef Ackermann, CEO of Deutsche Bank AG
How exactly is that criminal a world leader? What is he doing there?
I guess we’re really in a industrial feudalistic global system already...

--
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
1. Re:Ackermann? World leaders? by Sique · 2010-01-31 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  He controls money. That's what he's doing there. And he is a Swiss citizen, so he has all the rights of Switzerland to be in Davos, Switzerland.
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
2. Re:Ackermann? World leaders? by furbyhater · 2010-01-31 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  Well, sadly most other Swiss citizens don't have the right to circulate freely in Davos for the duration of the WEF.
3. Re:Ackermann? World leaders? by Opportunist · 2010-01-31 12:07 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Didn't you get the memo? The new definition of a world leader is "a criminal with corporate backing". They struck the "politician" between criminal and with, because they ain't really important anymore, you can move and replace them as you see fit.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
What are they going to say about it anyway? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 11:19 · Score: 0

What are they going to say about it anyway? At least we know about it and can talk about it. It's not revisionist history yet...
Indeed... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 11:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

While it is certainly true that might makes right, as you also said, in the not too distant future they'll also have the most powerful military.
Fact of the mater is, there are quite a few of their rules that I don't really care to be subjected to and the more complacent we are here and now, the more dismal the future may well become.
Not spending-wise...the US is by far #1 by SuperBanana · 2010-01-31 11:53 · Score: 4, Informative

and the most powerful military.
The US spends more money in total than the next dozen or so nations combined: http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending#InContextUSMilitarySpendingVersusRestoftheWorld
Note how the US is just slliiiiiiiightly less than half of that pie chart, and the United states spent 5.8 times what China did in 2008. Let's also not forget who is embroiled in two wars- Iraq and Afghanistan.
Per capita for the US, looks to be about $2500 in 2004, now $3200: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PerCapitaInflationAdjustedDefenseSpending.PNG
Why not have a look at where that places us relative to everyone else? For some reason "Nationmaster" doesn't list the US, but here you can see that figure is $1000 more than the next-highest, Israel (all the figures are from 2004): http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_exp_dol_fig_percap-expenditures-dollar-figure-per-capita
GDP-wise, America outspends at a percentage twice the world average; Russia actually beat the US relative to GDP on a couple of occasions, but that probably has more to do with Russia's GDP being in the toilet.
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=ms_mil_xpnd_gd_zs&idim=country:USA:CHN:GBR:RUS&tdim=true&tstart=567993600000&tunit=Y&tlen=20

--
Please help metamoderate.
1. Re:Not spending-wise...the US is by far #1 by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 12:01 · Score: 0
  
  Did you miss these words in the post you're replying to? "within a few decades".
  Right now the US economy is larger than China's. That will not continue to be true and there will be no way the USA will be able to keep up with what China can do in the future, either in military spending OR in military technology.
2. Re:Not spending-wise...the US is by far #1 by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 12:47 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Extending a curve on a graph onward "a few decades" is unreasonable when there's such a poor record of being able to predict things even two years ahead. Even more so when the bit of curve you want to extend a few decades is shorter than a few decades long.
  Predictions of dominance based merely on population size tend to be wrong (otherwise India and the EU would individually be towering over the US, economically and/or militarily). Predictions of dominance based on will and opportunistic ruthlessness have often been wrong too (in the late 70s, the soviets were going to eat our lunch! in the early 80s, the soviets were waiting in long lines for bread).
  China's growing at 10% (of a smallest total) whereas the US is growing at 4% (of a big total) TODAY, but China's growth is driven by technological catchup and a wide price differential. China's GDP is still only around 1/3 that of the US. As the tech catch-up continues, there is less tech to catch up to and the catching up becomes much harder. As the price differential narrows, there is less artificial incentive to buy Chinese and the growth rate slows. China overtaking the US would require a drastic shift in strategy that has not yet even begun - and thus doomsday predictions based on this cannot yet be made.
  IMO, China won't get much past half the US GDP; the trade balance shifts by then to other countries being cheaper than China.
3. Re:Not spending-wise...the US is by far #1 by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 15:42 · Score: 0
  
  The US spends more money in total than the next dozen or so nations combined
  Now that the US is broke, where is the money coming from? Here's a hint:
  Ch_na ...
4. Re:Not spending-wise...the US is by far #1 by eggnoglatte · 2010-01-31 18:31 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The US spends more money in total than the next dozen or so nations combined: http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending#InContextUSMilitarySpendingVersusRestoftheWorld
  Note how the US is just slliiiiiiiightly less than half of that pie chart, and the United states spent 5.8 times what China did in 2008. Let's also not forget who is embroiled in two wars- Iraq and Afghanistan.
  And just how much longer do you think the US will be able to afford that? What happens when China stops financing the US deficit by buying up all the US bonds? US citizens are too much in the hole themselves to be able to afford buying those bonds.
  This is the crucial mistake the US has made: it has blown its wealth on two wars that mean nothing. Those made a few people with Haliburton shares filthy rich, but the country is in real trouble for it now.
5. Re:Not spending-wise...the US is by far #1 by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-02 18:53 · Score: 0
  
  So? USA spent on pricey weaponry while Chinese can just kill you with consumer's milk powders and toys? Pfft. Go brag elsewhere.
This is a slippery slope to hell by janimal · 2010-01-31 12:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

Not to be the devil's advocate here, but wasn't it also extremely profitable to be helping out Hitler once upon a time? Are commercial interests really a good justification for what's going on?
This is not an area for business to make judgements on. Business will do what is legal, and no more. This is an area for governments to step in. Why not make it illegal for corps to engage in business practices that would be considered unlawful outside the jurisdiction? That would fix a lot of these ethical problems. The way it is now, a moral corp cannot afford to be outdone in China by an amoral one.
Corps should not be left alone in making judgements on ethics. The most recent lesson on that isn't Nazi Germany, btw. It happened as recently as this decade, when Mr. Greenspan trusted banks to make the right decisions.
As far as I can see, there is no grey area here.
1. Re:This is a slippery slope to hell by yacc143 · 2010-01-31 12:33 · Score: 1
  
  Well, technically, yes, some US companies delivered that data management technologies that made the holocaust even possible.
  Interestingly, they were not punished in any way. Well, yes, up to the moment where the US entered the war, it was clearly a simple legal business transaction, and afterwards it only complicated slightly the situation, the company that I'm thinking about just setup they're corporate entities up in a different way, ...
2. Re:This is a slippery slope to hell by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 13:59 · Score: 0
  
  Godwin's Law ... you lose.
*SPLUTTER* THE US GOVERNMENT DIDN'T WANT TO... by Eggplant62 · 2010-01-31 12:25 · Score: 0, Troll

UPSET CHINESE INVESTORS? WTF???
Who owns this country? Yeah, it's pretty self-evident from that statement. The Chinese do.
Welcome to the Communist States of China,folks, and let's all salute our leaders for pissing away the farm. Huzzah!!
1. Re:*SPLUTTER* THE US GOVERNMENT DIDN'T WANT TO... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 12:53 · Score: 0
  
  You're an idiot. If the you owe the bank all of the money it took to buy your house, they own you. However, if one sovereign nation holds the notes to currency that another sovereign nation dispenses at its pleasure, the borrower owns the lender. If the US decided to negate that debt (which they can do), who would be worse off? It's not like the Chinese holders of these treasuries can somehow "foreclose" on the United States. Sure, the U.S. would have trouble selling treasuries after that (for a while), but they just made trillions of dollars of Chinese money disappear *overnight*. It's a liability for them to a much greater degree than it is to the U.S.
It makes sense by Dr.+Hellno · 2010-01-31 12:26 · Score: 3, Interesting

not to challenge China, an important global market, about cyber-attacks on google when there's no significant evidence that they were responsible. The first thing we did was accuse them, but since they deny culpability, and there isn't any evidence to contradict them, bringing it up again is at least arrogant and probably xenophobic too. If proof of their involvement surfaces, maybe then we'll have something to talk about.
1. Re:It makes sense by fedorfedor · 2010-02-01 01:10 · Score: 1
  
  so... which other hackers are you suggesting would have (as their primary goal) to access the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists? Perhaps you should reread http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html if you are fortunate enough to have access to it.
  The point is China's ongoing surveillance and censorship of its own citizens, which I hope nobody needs extra evidence to believe in.
2. Re:It makes sense by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-01 02:28 · Score: 0
  
  From Google.
  "Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists."
Money makes the world go round... by allcoolnameswheretak · 2010-01-31 12:45 · Score: 1

...and there are those with alot of money who are not interested in changing that.
Re:Soooo....THE USA = COMIE BASTARDS EH? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 12:51 · Score: 0

yup we know who now wheres the pants
now when i speak of american ceos ill have to always mention Panties they wear at least once
Much Easier to Trash the USA by geoffrobinson · 2010-01-31 13:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

It truly is a back-handed complement that people have no qualms trashing America in their public comments. It's as if they are saying "we don't like you or some of the things you do, but you aren't truly big enough bastards to retaliate against us."
Truly evil regimes like China and Russia get different treatment.
And if you are truly idiotic like Hugo Chavez, you get visits from Sean Penn and kudos from Oliver Stone.

--
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
1. Re:Much Easier to Trash the USA by hyades1 · 2010-01-31 15:21 · Score: 1
  
  Pure, unadulterated horse shit! I've been as hard on Communist China as anybody...and I haven't been shy about expressing my contempt for the US when it deserved it, either. And, yes, that includes on the record under my real name (which is weird enough that I'm instantly findable).
  I'm not alone, either. China has had lots of bad press. The main problems with China have come up because corporate America would murder their mothers to get access to the rising Chinese middle class, and they'd rather guarantee slave-labour jobs in China than decently-paid jobs in the free world. And, of course, there's no shortage of consumers all over North America who buy Chinese (especially at WalMart) to save a few bucks, even though buying American (or Canadian, or European) would keep their neighbors working and be much better for the long-term stability of the free world.
  
  --
  I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
2. Re:Much Easier to Trash the USA by Temporal · 2010-01-31 16:36 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I havent noticed China and Russia illegally invading any countries recently, or propping up mass murderers like Israel.
  Countries illegally invaded: Georgia
  Mass murderers propped up: Sudan, Iran, Myanmar, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and probably others I'm not thinking of right now. China and Russia seem to think that if you are only murdering your own people, it doesn't really count.
  
  The US has bombed 16 countries since WW2, an China and Russia are evil?
  How many countries has Russia bombed since WW2? Think about it. You might want to change your timeframe to "since 1990".
3. Re:Much Easier to Trash the USA by CAIMLAS · 2010-01-31 21:07 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Add to that list: half of Eastern Europe, most of the northern *stans (including Afghanistan), and so on.
  Not to mention the travesties committed in Tibet and throughout western China to quell "dissent".
  And Georgia was just recently. Like, under a year and a half ago. (But I'm sure Georgia deserved it, that bitch. How dare she leave Mother Russia.)
  
  --
  ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
4. Re:Much Easier to Trash the USA by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 22:58 · Score: 0
  
  Then why don't you write to George Bush and have him assemble a private army, storm the silos, and bomb the fuck out of the planet, you fucktard?
5. Re:Much Easier to Trash the USA by Reservoir+Penguin · 2010-02-01 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  I've read several international reports and pretty much all of them lay blame on the Georgia which started the whole mess by trying to perform a massive land grab preceded by a huge Grad MRLS attack on the capital of South Ossetia and Russian peace keepers base (the Russian peace keepers did not have any heavy weapons, just armored carriers). Georgia really brought it upon itself.
  
  --
  US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
Precedent by copponex · 2010-01-31 13:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'd say the US will have hung itself with it's own rope. All China will have to do is claim that the United States has the capacity to conduct terrorism, and then if it has the means, China can setup a blockade, wage a currency war, or invade under the precedent we set a few years ago. Since we've destroyed the power of the UN and the World Court, we won't even have symbolic legal recourse.
The Golden Rule ain't for nothing. You can call it silly European bullshit I guess, but you also seem like the sort of person who fantasizes about nuclear war. Too bad.
1. Re:Precedent by Bartab · 2010-01-31 13:50 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Since we've destroyed the power of the UN and the World Court, we won't even have symbolic legal recourse.
  Neither of those entities have ever -had- real power. The UN has had some very minor paper power - that which people like to point to and mumble about "international law" (a non-existent fallacy) - but the world court is nothing.
  There is no legal recourse at the sovereign level. That's the meaning of the word. The only recourse is militaristic, and China will not be invading the US. Nor will the US be invading China. Both are sad, pathetic, fantasies of bizarrely twisted and broken minds.
  
  --
  Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
2. Re:Precedent by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 16:24 · Score: 0
  
  The only recourse is militaristic, and China will not be invading the US. Nor will the US be invading China. Both are sad, pathetic, fantasies of bizarrely twisted and broken minds.
  Mr. Orwell does not deserve such labels.
Invest more in India? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 13:53 · Score: 0

I just can't understand why the West doesn't invest more in India, a proven democratic, if somewhat chaotic country. It seems that the only thing China has (or "had" to speak on hindsight) going for it is (or "was") is a big population, that is, a momentarily cheap pool of labor. Both China and India have it (and Indian labor should by now be cheaper than China's). And for what it's worth many more Indians speak a form of Western language (English). The major languages of India are even distantly related to the major languages of Europe (Indo-European). What is it that China has that India has less of?
1. Re:Invest more in India? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 18:25 · Score: 0
  
  India has some rather strict rules on foreign investment. For instance Walmart can't go in and open a bunch of stores because of the rules.
Exports by deanston · 2010-01-31 14:13 · Score: 1

For decades USSR exported communism, and US try to export democracy, but we really export capitalism. The offspring is China, a single party empire that knows how to take advantage of capitalism and is more ruthless than anything witnessed in the West. China will run into problems, but mostly it will not be from external pressures, but as a result of trying to bring Western consumer standards to their entire populace. So I supposed we'll still have the last laugh, but I wonder if Google will still be significant by then.
Keep personal, private arguments to PMs by Psaakyrn · 2010-01-31 14:41 · Score: 1

Maybe it's just a personal, private argument, and does not need to be brought up here? Granted a major argument, but still, no one likes their thread to be derailed.
The new Yellow Peril by haruchai · 2010-01-31 15:31 · Score: 1

Apologies if anyone finds this term offensive - I'm using it for historical significance.
So, after all the decades of US posturing on the evil communists, including using Roland Reagan to warn the US public that "socialized medicine"
would cause the downfall of the great capitalist nation, THIS is what it has become? The Western World, essentially the defendants of personal
freedom are now so craven that they kowtow to China - a country that has largely become a dominant force through enslavement of its people,
unfair valuation of its currency and extensive industrial espionage?
We are well and truly living in the Decline of the American Empire.

--
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
1. Re:The new Yellow Peril by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 16:12 · Score: 0
  
  We are well and truly living in the Decline of the American Empire.
  No shit sherlock.
  What amazes me is that everyone in the 18-39 age group is completely surprised by this. Oh, wow, what happened? I'll give you three fucking guesses what happened, first two don't count.
Hey everybody, don't piss off china! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 15:35 · Score: 0

They own all our debt. And all of yours too probably. International cyber attacks but lets say it didn't happen so the credit merchant will keep buying our promises. Replace international law with a 90 day guarantee and a coupon for 20% off our next bond sale. If China ends up owning the world it's because the world is a bunch of cowards who like to brag about The Law.
What's Bondsteel? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 15:52 · Score: 0

Two wars?
How about three wars?
The 1999 4-month bombfest in Yugosliavia was even worse when it comes to prefabricated wars.
We bombed in support of albanian terrorist groups which the CIA called one year earlier "the largest and best armed terror group in the world".
Camp Bondstell is now the biggest US base I believe.
We supported Bin Laden when he and tens of thousands of his head choppers in Bosnia and the biggest terrorist group (that we armed) which controls the heroin trade in europe when it served our needs. And NO ONE was ever held accountable.
Not when after 9/11 we captured islamic militants in Bosnia, not when the only person captured for the Madrid bombing was captured as he was travelling to Bosnia or when for a while there in Saudi Arabia, three consecutive Al Quaeda leaders there ended up being Bosnian holy war veterans, one coming back home with bosnian wife and passport in tow.
The US has always supported terrorism when it serves our needs.
Please leave human rights outside with the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.
Let's not act like were some paragons of virtue and that human rights mean anything.
Human lives mean nothing in US politics.
That's why we can sit around and claim ignorance at the 30-40 countries the US has invaded since ww2, at all the overthrown governments and civil wars weve help feed and the almost 1000 military bases we have in way over 100 countries.
Human rights? Is that a joke you enjoy repeating?
China Will Have Its Own Problems by the_mushroom_king · 2010-01-31 16:04 · Score: 0

What keeps the powers in Beijing up at night isn't the US, but Chinese people wanting the same rights and representation enjoyed in the Western world.
The Communist Party is raping the country at the expense of the common people. Eventually, they will tire of eating poisoned food and washing it down with poisoned water. They will tire of watching their children die from the poisoned air.
All the censorship in the world won't stop that from happening.
Article is now an unperson. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 16:23 · Score: 0

Absofuckinglutely amazing! The article has become an unperson.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-01-31/china-bosses-davos-as-nobody-discusses-what-happened-to-google.html doesn't even load.
The web is forever I keep reading and hearing over the years.
Bullshit. The web is just more of Orwell's Ministry of Truth, and has just as many flaws as printed articles. The power of the press goes to those who can afford the press; and likewise, it's a web article for as long as it's published. In this case, the article has seemingly become an unperson. At the time I'm posting this, note how the page tries to load, but there is no content. By tomorrow, I fully expect the half-loading page to literally disappear.
Land of the free, my ass. I got one for 'ya. How about you free your mind first? Drop the left/right liberal/conservative dogma crap going on in the United States. Because the only real purpose it serves is to keep you in line.
Think for yourself. Then ask yourself why you think what you did.
Oh, wow! by Alex+Belits · 2010-01-31 16:45 · Score: 1

Another long discussion about "freedom", and white man's burden.
The elephant in the room is that those attacks are as much "Chinese" as 2009 H1N1 flu is "swine".

--
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
1. Re:Oh, wow! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 22:15 · Score: 0
  
  Another long discussion about "freedom", and white man's burden.
  The elephant in the room is that those attacks are as much "Chinese" as 2009 H1N1 flu is "swine".
  Evidence to back up your assertion (which is contrary to what the victims say)?
Everybody's So Freakin Xenophobic by introspekt.i · 2010-01-31 17:00 · Score: 0, Troll

China's got a BILLION people living in it. It's naturally going to rise to its full potential over time, especially with such centralized control. To say that it's doing all of this because it's out to get us, is rather paranoid, xenophobic, and shallow. Wouldn't you want the best for yourself, too? Also, BECAUSE China is growing, the US is falling apart? Really? Iraq and Afghanistan are going to destroy us? Please. Doesn't anybody remember Vietnam? I think the US came out OK (albeit bruised and shamed) after that one. Slashdot conversations like these are great, it's as if we're all having a real discussion on the issues, implications, and possibilities, yet we aren't. This is just everybody's fears, angst, and value choices wrapped in the sesame seed bun of legitimate conversation. China's going do it's thing, get over it. Does it bug you that much? Don't buy Chinese products, but don't come crying to me when that doesn't affect anything anyway.
1. Re:Everybody's So Freakin Xenophobic by introspekt.i · 2010-02-01 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  Modding me troll? Real smooth, guys.
I have no doubt it's being discussed by mbone · 2010-01-31 17:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

Oh, you can bet it's being discussed. Just not publicly. That's why people go to Davos in the first place, to have the ability to discuss things privately.
And now you know the final truth to the story by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 17:01 · Score: 0

"Everyone has their commercial interests in mind."
Umm wow by shoehornjob · 2010-01-31 17:30 · Score: 0

Somewhere in the middle of this thread we went from world leaders and google getting attacked to politics and government having poor morals etc. Pretty heavy shit for a site that's mostly focused on science and technology.

Government and corporations are as corrupt and devoid of morality as we allow them to be. Always have been always will. Until the people get tired of this shit why expect anything to change. Nothing interesting to see here move on.

--
"We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
Oil for Euros. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 18:00 · Score: 1, Insightful

That's why the USA attacked Iraq: the USA felt it couldn't afford to allow Iraq to sell Iraqi oil for Euros instead of greenbacks.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
I feel so proud.
God bless you, John Yoo. by copponex · 2010-01-31 18:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

The UN has had some very minor paper power - that which people like to point to and mumble about "international law" (a non-existent fallacy) - but the world court is nothing.
The UN and World Court do exist when they agree with the United States. Isn't that peculiar.

There is no legal recourse at the sovereign level. That's the meaning of the word. The only recourse is militaristic
So, the trade agreements around the world are a figment of my imagination? Trade embargoes don't exist, multi-party talks to persuade foreign governments exist entirely in my imagination. It is fascinating how insane I am.

and China will not be invading the US. Nor will the US be invading China.
And you'd base this on what fortune telling ability? I'm glad simple assertions are gaining traction here on slashdot. By this time next year we can all be Brothers in Christ.

Both are sad, pathetic, fantasies of bizarrely twisted and broken minds.
What do you think the result will be in the end if the caveman ethic of violent response continues to be the most popular option among powerful nations? It seems like adhering to legal treaties at every opportunity would be a better idea than blowing people up, or testing the reliability of Soviet era nuclear defense systems.
But to hell with international law, right? No constitutional republic really believes in the rule of law. Finally we can admit it's all a farce, and move on with whatever benefits the empire. I'm so glad you've seen the light, sir. Your fealty has been noted.
1. Re:God bless you, John Yoo. by Neoprofin · 2010-01-31 21:52 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The UN and World Court do exist when they agree with the United States. Isn't that peculiar.
  No, it makes perfect sense when you have bodies that require their supporters to bear the weight of every decision they make that are frequently run by a bloated and corrupt bureaucracy. There's a reason that the 17,000 U.S. troops in Haiti weren't donated to the U.N. mission there just like there's a reason why the only action taken against Sudan has been an arrest warrant in Europe. It's unfortunate that the UN security council is a reminder to so many other countries about their comparative lack of power.
  
  So, the trade agreements around the world are a figment of my imagination? Trade embargoes don't exist, multi-party talks to persuade foreign governments exist entirely in my imagination. It is fascinating how insane I am.
  Iran. Cuba. Sudan. China, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Germany. You're not insane, those things certainly do exists, but you may wish to note they've been notoriously unreliable at actually accomplishing anything.
  
  And you'd base this on what fortune telling ability? I'm glad simple assertions are gaining traction here on slashdot. By this time next year we can all be Brothers in Christ.
  I would base it on logistical difficulty, the current tactical impossibility, and that I imagine both sides being armed with nuclear weapons makes the possibility of ever conquering either one pretty unlikely.
  
  I'd say the US will have hung itself with it's own rope. All China will have to do is claim that the United States has the capacity to conduct terrorism, and then if it has the means, China can setup a blockade, wage a currency war, or invade under the precedent we set a few years ago. Since we've destroyed the power of the UN and the World Court, we won't even have symbolic legal recourse.
  1) They don't
  2) Why would a one party dictatorship growing rich on the exploitation of their people want to attack the people most responsible for the never ending stream of money that has made their economic success possible?
  
  I have nothing against international law, but to ignore the immense limitation of it specifically with implementation and enforcement is just being unrealistic. It doesn't require you to be a warmonger to realize that the system as it stands now would be ineffective at preventing war between the US and China if that were the course they chose. Acting like a 7th grader on crack when someone points out that taking the moral high ground is sometimes less important than taking the real high ground is uncalled for.
2. Re:God bless you, John Yoo. by copponex · 2010-02-01 07:07 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  There's a reason that the 17,000 U.S. troops in Haiti weren't donated to the U.N. mission there
  It was more likely the same reason a UN mission didn't kidnap the democratically elected President of Haiti, Jean Bertrand Aristide, into exile in 2004. There have been 8,000 UN troops fighting in Haiti since then.
  
  just like there's a reason why the only action taken against Sudan has been an arrest warrant in Europe. It's unfortunate that the UN security council is a reminder to so many other countries about their comparative lack of power.
  The UN lacks power because the US, currently the only world superpower, has steadily decreased its credibility, cut funding, and defied nearly every vote critical of the US with its permanent veto power. Trying to say that the only action taken by the UN is an arrest warrant is simple dishonesty. They have charted a course of action, but they lack the funding to carry it out.
  The United States and Europe standing by while Darfur rages is more of an indictment of our moral character than anything else. They'll watch it the same way they watched Rwanda and Somalia and East Timor and Cambodia. If the resources aren't important, the people who live near them are worthless in the eyes of the West. Other nations act similarly, but it's pathetic that the West is unable to accept their own value system.
  
  Cuba. Sudan. China, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Germany. You're not insane, those things certainly do exists, but you may wish to note they've been notoriously unreliable at actually accomplishing anything.
  I really doubt this is evidence of any attempt at diplomacy. Why not point to Turkey or Egypt or Syria or Jordan or even Libya? I guess because it would be counter to your argument. (Incidentally, all those are countries with atrocious human rights records and except for Turkey, no democratic institutions. They all plead fealty to the Empire, so diplomacy is therefore an option.)
  
  I would base it on logistical difficulty, the current tactical impossibility, and that I imagine both sides being armed with nuclear weapons makes the possibility of ever conquering either one pretty unlikely.
  No one said there would be conquering. There would be a fight, and in fact, the rhetoric just got inched up since we made a 6 billion dollar arms deal with Taiwan, I'm guessing in retribution for the cyber attacks.
  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/01/chinese-us-taiwan-arms-deal
  
  Chinese state media have lambasted the US arms deal with Taiwan, turning up the pressure over the $6.4bn (£4bn) agreement.
  Beijing's reaction to the package – which includes Black Hawk helicopters, Patriot missiles and mine-hunter ships – was described by one official newspaper as its toughest in three decades of sales. It comes as the bilateral relationship faces other strains over issues including climate change, Tibet, censorship and trade.
  A commentary in the official Communist party newspaper the People's Daily accused Washington of "rude and unreasonable cold war thinking"... China Daily, an official English language paper, said in an editorial: "China's response, no matter how vehement, is justified. No country worthy of respect can sit idle while its national security is endangered and core interests damaged."
  
  1) They don't [have the means]
  They do. We are no longer the majority importer of Chinese goods. They are now the largest exporter in the world. What manufacturing sector can we replace theirs with?
  
  2) Why would a one party dictatorship growing rich on the exploitation of their people want to attack the people most responsible for the never ending stream of money that has made their economic success possible?
  Because, amazingly, some co
3. Re:God bless you, John Yoo. by Neoprofin · 2010-02-01 22:59 · Score: 1
  
  It was more likely the same reason a UN mission didn't kidnap the democratically elected President of Haiti, Jean Bertrand Aristide, into exile in 2004.
  Strange, I would have complained that the US put him back into power in the first place given the circumstance under which he left the first time. Given his treatment of the population of Haiti I think it would speak well of our moral character if we had kidnapped him.
  
  Trying to say that the only action taken by the UN is an arrest warrant is simple dishonesty. They have charted a course of action, but they lack the funding to carry it out.
  How much funding does it take to ask Turkey or Egypt, who have both had opportunities, to arrest Omar al-Bashir? It might not stop the violence but I can't imagine removing the head of state who refuses peacekeeping efforts could hurt things.
  
  The United States and Europe standing by while Darfur rages is more of an indictment of our moral character than anything else. They'll watch it the same way they watched Rwanda and Somalia and East Timor and Cambodia.
  You preach the Western powers not sticking their noses in other nations' business and complain when they apparently sit idle ignoring that Sudan itself as well as the Arab League and the African Union have actively and publicly resisted efforts to end the violence. I guess multinational efforts work both ways. Sudan, by the way is rich in petroleum and precious metals, not to shoot your theory to shit or anything. Australia, New Zealand, and Portugal all had peacekeepers in East Timor. China on the other hand is the primary weapons source of Sudan as well as the political and military support of the of the Khmer Rouge.
  
  If you want to talk about dishonesty why not mention that the government of Somalia was overthrown by Ethiopian armed troops and that the U.S. and later UN made extensive efforts to stabilize the security and humanitarian situation for year until the Somalis began attacking aid workers, a situation we see repeated in Sudan. Ask yourself why after years of futile efforts in Africa trying to get waring factions fueled by nothing but resentment to stop fighting each other at great costs to themselves that Europe and America wouldn't be enthusiastic about embroiling themselves in another civil war in Rwanda. I think they should have anyway and I can't imagine being a Belgian peacekeeper and not becoming directly involved but I lean more towards the spirit of their mission than the law.
  
  No one said there would be conquering. There would be a fight, and in fact, the rhetoric just got inched up since we made a 6 billion dollar arms deal with Taiwan, I'm guessing in retribution for the cyber attacks.
  You said invasion.1 : an act of invading; especially: incursion of an army for conquest or plunder. I said they don't have the means, not for an invasion, not for a blockade, and not for a currency war. Furthermore that no one does because the game would be a loss for everyone long before it could be won. That aside, the aid to Taiwan has nothing to do with Chinese cyberattacks. The U.S. has been providing military and economic aid to Taiwan since its inception to the tune of $18.3 billion between 1950-2006. In fact portions of this money, less than half of what they requested, were allocated in 2001 under George W. Bush.
  
  They do. We are no longer the majority importer of Chinese goods. They are now the largest exporter in the world. What manufacturing sector can we replace theirs with?
  We never were. Hong Kong was the leading market beginning in the 1960s when trade with the US was still banned. When they rejoined the PRC the EU who had been conducting heavy trade in both directions took their place. You may also wish to note that both the EU and the US still have larger manufacturing sectors than China,
That's what "corporation" means. by seanadams.com · 2010-01-31 18:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

The only responsibility Google has is to make a profit. That's what "corporation" means.
Actually, no. The word literally means "embodiment", which is the essence of its legal definition. A corporation could exist for the explicit purpose of losing money, giving it to charity, spreading the gospel, etc. Whatever the shareholders prescribe.
1. Re:That's what "corporation" means. by PopeRatzo · 2010-02-01 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, friend, I should have said "profiting the shareholders". Or maybe better would have been "for-profit" corporation.
  Maybe there are "for-profit" corporations that exist for the purpose of losing money, but I can't think of any examples off-hand.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
"that's what corporation means" by Rocketship+Underpant · 2010-01-31 20:15 · Score: 1

I agree with 99% of your post but have one minor nit to pick.
"The only responsibility Google has is to make a profit. That's what 'corporation' means. "
A corporation can be formed for practically anything, not just profit. The corporate charter lays out what the purpose and goals of the corporation are. Google's charter was unique, if I recall correctly, in that they pledged to place certain ethical values above profits, and they are obligated to continue doing so.

--
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
they destroy our climate, now they destroy ... by Gunstick · 2010-01-31 20:39 · Score: 1

YES
it was china who made fail Kopenhagen conference! They simply said no to everything. Really everything. Even to proposals like that Europe does even more CO2 reduction than planned. No, no ,nonono, no and no.
Bloody hell. Just skrew them!

--
Atari rules... ermm... ruled.
For a different viewpoint (some might not like it) by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 22:34 · Score: 0

http://www.voltairenet.org/article163619.html
We the people... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-01 00:00 · Score: 0

...responsible?? UNPOSSIBLE!!! Blame it on big labor and the oil industry!!! NAYAHAHA CANT HEAR YA!!
The other elephant by anarcat · 2010-02-01 07:42 · Score: 1

Seems to me saying "no one talked about google" is really overlooking a key issue in current geopolitics, namely the 6.4b$ arms sales that the US is preparing with Taiwan. Now, that's the kind of things that can get China annoyed... who cares about google!

--
Semantics is the gravity of abstraction
Article pulled by sacolcor · 2010-02-01 08:30 · Score: 1

...and now the BusinessWeek article appears to have itself been pulled; I'm currently getting a 404.