Canada seeking to replace Germany in the the Deep Freeze

[E_B_Samaritano]

Personally, I think the Americans bashing Canada and the Canadians bashing the US on this board need to move on to a less controversial.


How bout we dabate the fact the Santa Claus actually looks like Hitler?

Both countires have their good and bad points. Thru out history both countries have done things well and done things bad.

Enough said on the subject, I believe that it is time to move on.

Scubadoo,

Actually Santa Claus was a black man.

This board is dominated by Canadians bashing Americans. These discussions run unchecked until all of a sudden somebody offers a response. Why cry uncle now? I suggest if you have a problem with the content of the thread, you are free to ignore the thread altogether.

EBS

 

[train]

Or better yet just ignore you.

 

[E_B_Samaritano]

Re: contradictions

EBS
I find it odd that you claim Bush has not impacted your civil rights and yet you started an earlier thread on civil right violations with US agencies monitoring Iraqis inside US borders -"And you thought the CDN/US border was a hassle". You point to a New York Times article on how some civil rights may be in jeopardy

d

D,

As usual you think so much you outsmart yourself. I provided that seed article as "chum" bait. I know the audience. Rather than shut down the thread by slamming you immediately, I opened it up for the one sided onslaught that followed. I think Canadians objections to the border issue are downright ridiculous. I have absolutely no problem whatsover to policies that require me to be interviewed in light of the current situation in our country. Our relaxed attitude at our borders is one of the many vulnerabilities of our open democracy.

During the 70's when I was in college, I often flew home via JFK. Highjacking was at a peak during that time. On several occassions I was removed from line and questioned by the FBI. After a while, they just waved at me every time I entered the airport. My advice to all Arabs in the US, is that they need to get over it and suck it up. They have paid zero dues in this country and know nothing about violation of civil rights. Let them go to any Arab country and talk about civil rights...that would be the last thing they'd say prior to having their tongues cut out.

I agree we shouldn't have given those Al Qaeda suspects a room at Quantanimo. I think we should have given them what they're used of...a nice filthy cell in an Afghani prision. Amnesty seems to have no problem with Afghani prisons. Many of the Afghanis begged for Quantanimo bay. Had we left them there, it would have cost our taxpayers a lot less and they could even have their own local clergy, filthy water, no medical atttention, and starvation portion of rations. They are living better than some in US prisions...end of story. In fact, even better we should have put them in Supermax prisons and let them mix with the general population.

I visited Vancouver 8 times in 2001. 5 of those 8 times I was held for extended questioning, despite the fact that I have entered Canada many times, have always arrived via air with a valid US passport, and should be on a first name basis with many of the customs and immigration agents, besides being a known entity in their system. Guess what, I'm a guest in your country. If I want to be there, I obey your laws...end of story. Ever been through customs in Saudi Arabia? I have. I invite you to go through customs there, and get back to me.

EBS

 

[E_B_Samaritano]

Don't you see the problem here? You demand change from others instantly. When others ask you to change, you tell them to fuck off or say "we'll change when we bloody well fell like it" and hide behind realpolitik.

Actually what I see is a country that is openly critical of itself and it's own policies. We change as a result of our conviction, not yours. It has served US well. I don't know many countries in the world that constantly adjust their policies to conflict with their interests..do you?

No you don't. You contribute the least of all industrialized nations and lower than standards recognized by leading relief organizations.

Is that a fact. Your post is full of exaggerated declarations with absolutely no background reference to bolster your positions.

We noted massive corruption in a UN aid program and discontinued our contributions until such time that the UN diplomats could stop feeding themselves caviar and forwarding fermented grain to the intended recipients. This was in the 80's during the Reagan administration. In the meantime we gave those contributions and more in direct aid, not reported through those books that you read. Food drops to people starving to death don't show up in the accounting.

Moreover, yours is yet another inflamatory statement with little basis in fact. Let me see if I can believe you by recitation of fact. We contribute 90 plus percent of all humanitarian food aid to NORTH KOREA...one of those axis of evil countries, and were and still are the largest donor of financial aid and relief to Afghanistan even prior to 9/11. I think somebody is telling you what you'd like to believe, not what is the truth. The US is always involved with disaster relief..ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET...even to those countries that bad mouth us once they take our handouts. Perhaps Canada can step it up to make up for our shortfall..NOT.

Argentina and Brazil came to the US looking for money, why? Because YOUR interventions fucked up their economies.

.

I see your one note song never ends. Their economies were non existant to in total chaos prior to any US intervention. The Nazis vacationed in Argentina post WW2. We had nothing to do with the country at that time. Did it ever appear to you that just perhaps there may have been financial corruption within these countries? Did it ever appear to you that monetary policies such as pegging your currency to dollar might wreak havoc in an undisciplined economy? Ever been to Argentina or Brazil. I have many times. Hence the name: El buen Samaritano.. Your tirades wreak of bitterness but lack once again little basis in fact. The fact that we were there and they failed, means it's our fault..REGARDLESS to their own malphesance(sp)...that's totally sad and hardly worth any response.

And you almost never cancel debt without serious strings attached, like deregualtion of markets (the most popular tactic of the World Bank and IMF).

Total bullshit. We GAVE 16 billion dollars to the Marshall Plan countries. We never collected on a 11.5 billion dollar debt from WW1. Great Britain is the only country that has chosen to even make payments on WW2 debt. And they are still paying in installements..LOL. We have canceled tons of debt to third world countries..regardless to whether there are strings attached there is no such thing as a free lunch. If you come to me for a loan, I have a right to set the conditions. The US owes nobody a handout.

Your "economic miracle" in these nations was a disaster for the majority of the people there.

Once again a curious statement from left field. You would have me believe that people were fat dumb and happy and since we were unhappy at their prosperity, we remedied the situation with our "economic miracle". Gonzo..you are just that...completly gone...you believe this garbage and present it out of context...

I'm done responding...I suggest that if you ever had a bout with sexual dysfunction, that you quote one or two of these blame US intervention propaganda.... seems to me that's the only way you get a hard on...LOL..

And tell me in all your self righteousness, can you expound on just one country that Canada has rebuilt to any extent?

EBS

 

[onthebottom]

Proportion?

The paralells between America and Nazi Germany may not be obvious to those without a sense of history. But the comparison can be drawn.

Of course, the US has no "concentration camps" or "final solution". But one can draw paralells. Consider the internment camps of WWII that contained Japanese citizens. Or the prisons in which you now hold citizens without trial or charge or basic legal rights. Consider your "secret" military trials. If you want to take a real stretch, and this may not be representative of my view but it is a view held by many, the entire Ghetto system is in fact not very much different from the ghettos in Warsaw.

But the really instructive examples are thus: Consider that Hitler had his own "axis of evil". He described Poland and the Czechs as "a dagger at the heart of Germany". Flash forward to the eighties and consider our rehtoric over Nicaragua choosing to buy arms from the Soviets after we provided them no other options for self-defense. The rhetoric of that time could have almost been taken verbatim from many of Hitlers pre-war speeches. Much talk was made about Nicaragua only being 2 days mechanized march from Texas, surely "a dagger at the heart of Germany <America>". History tells us that the Polish and the Czechs were little actual threat to Germany and they armed themselves because they feared Germany. So what do you think the Nicaraguans were doing?

These same principles can be applied to our struggle with Iraq and indeed terror itself. Germany was facing a domestic financial crisis. So too, is America. War distracted the people from their financial woes and united them under the battle-standard, just as it has now. War injected so much into Germany's economy. Much as war has always done for America.

The argument could be made. It may or may not be a valid argument, but the elements are there in abundance.

PS- I would be more than happy if our goverment formed a distinct foreign policy. And indeed we have, in some respects. We defied you over Cuban sanctions. We defied you over Landmines and Kyoto. In fact, you'll find that Canada regularly votes the opposite of the US in many Security Council resolutions as does most of the world.

To compare the two is intellectually void. The Germans slaughtered a 100 million people (probably many more) during two wars in the last century motivated by racist delusions of superiority and an urge to concur the world. They destroyed Europe twice and the second time left half of it to be controlled by dictatorships. The US is trying to make the world a safer place. You can argue the methods or the proportions of the response and perhaps even the motivations if your truly paranoid but you can't compare the two. If you do, you minimize the evil of 20th century Germany and minimize the suffering the world had to endure.

The world would be a very different place if the US was an expansionist country, your country for instance would be a small but raw materials rich dominion, half of Europe and all of Asia would be US dominions... I think the US has a pretty good record of beating the bad guy, giving the land back to the people who originally owned it and help them build a free society (many times funding it). I guess this is your kinder / gentler domineering super power. Or perhaps you'd like the German or Soviet versions back?

OTB

P.S. A distinct foreign policy is not defined as defying us, don't you see the mindset your caught in. I think we are wrong on Kyoto but that’s a different discussion, and landmines are easy to hate if you don't have an army to protect.

 

[scubadoo]

Or better yet just ignore you.

I will continue to express my point of view in this form. Right now I think the above advice is the best course of action.

E_B_Samaritano, I had not flammed you personally in this form, but you turn around and insult me, that was uncalled for!

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

<<This is a shameful part of our country's past, one from which I am sure we have learned. Note also that Germans and Italians were imprisoned in limited numbers and that we captured German Spies who had a mission to blow up US infrastructure. This was not raw paranoia. Given the hatred created by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, I often wonder if we didn't save some lives despite the apparent unconstitutionality of this process. You may note, however, that the Supreme court found this practice to be constitutional. The President is afforded some extraordinary powers during wartime, especially when there is clear threat to the homeland. We weren't attacked at home during the Korean Conflict, Viet Nam or WW1. Note we did not resort to such draconian measures. If you know as much as you'd have us believe, you'd realize that the founding fathers are on record as saying the "Constitution is not a pact with death".>>

The Supreme Court also gave the election to Bush, make of that what you may.

No, you didn't lock up vietnamese citizens. You just shot protesters. Most of your crimes in that war happened on the battlefield. Agent Orange. Project Pheonix. Trading guns for heroin with the Anti-Red Hill Tribesmen. Plus getting all buddy buddy with Pol Pot. How many villages did your soldiers burn? How many people starved because you destroyed their farms? How many are still getting sick from exposure to Agent Orange? How many die or are maimed from unexploded munitions left behind?

Your founding fathers had no balls if their beliefs weren't worth death.



<<I just wish you'd flash forward and talk about something relevant for a change. I'd love to talk about the faux pas of the Soviet Union during the 19th century and especially the Cold War. It's just that I can't find very much official material from their goverment. I kept looking for www.kgb.org..no dice. Perhaps www.politbureau.ru. Nope..not found. Now www.cia.org seems to work just fine and it is full of information demanded by our citizens. The disclosure of that information in the 70's caused a demand that the CIA and other covert government agencies cease their questionable activity. Of course now, there are many that blame our concious for being our weakness, as we did leave ourselves wide open for 9/11 as a result of this. Now do you think there is a prevailing sentiment to even give a shit about how you feel about CIA in the 1960s-1980s?>>

Well, to that I can only say that most people in the world have memories longer than TV soundbites.

Just how would the CIA have stopped 9/11 if it were still dealing drugs? And if you don't think government agencies still act questionably, then you haven't ben paying any attention at all.

If the prevailing sentiment were expressed by people who had any idea of the consequences, I may take it into account. But the fact is, the majority of the American people are ignorant to many of the facts about their government and worse still, they are WILLFULLY ignorant. The same is true here, the same is true almost anywhere you go. If people knew the truth, the sentiment may be a little different.

Soviet faux pas in the 19th century? The Soviet Union didn't exist until after the revolution in 1918.


<<Only an educated idiot could posit this as an explanation. Anyone who understands geopolitics and the nature of regional conflict clearly understands that wars taking place in our backyard cause a clear threat to our country. Once again, since you have the US on your southern border, you can and have relaxed any sense of reality due to that stability. Let us trade places with Mexico and then come back and talk to me. Until then, you're pissing on your own leg going down this path.>>

Nicaragua was never a threat to the US in a military sense. Just as no other country in Latin America was or is. Nicaragua was a threat because becuase they chose to defy the washington consensus and choose their own path to self-determination. This threatened trade and access to and control of cenral american resources. As a result, the US did everything it could to stop Nicaragua and indeed every other SA country with brutal interventions, tin pot dictatorships, death squads (trained in America), sanctions, assassinations, invasions, you name it. All denounced by the UN and the World Court, both bodies you summarily ignored and continue to ignore.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

Is that a fact. Your post is full of exaggerated declarations with absolutely no background reference to bolster your positions.

We noted massive corruption in a UN aid program and discontinued our contributions until such time that the UN diplomats could stop feeding themselves caviar and forwarding fermented grain to the intended recipients. This was in the 80's during the Reagan administration. In the meantime we gave those contributions and more in direct aid, not reported through those books that you read. Food drops to people starving to death don't show up in the accounting.

Moreover, yours is yet another inflamatory statement with little basis in fact. Let me see if I can believe you by recitation of fact. We contribute 90 plus percent of all humanitarian food aid to NORTH KOREA...one of those axis of evil countries, and were and still are the largest donor of financial aid and relief to Afghanistan even prior to 9/11. I think somebody is telling you what you'd like to believe, not what is the truth. The US is always involved with disaster relief..ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET...even to those countries that bad mouth us once they take our handouts. Perhaps Canada can step it up to make up for our shortfall..NOT.>>

Alright, time for the facts, EBS.

The US, in terms of raw dollars contributed the most out of 22 OECD countries in 2001. This does not take into account many factors, first of which is the OECD commitment to spending at least 0.7% of GNP on foreign aid. In this regard, the US spent a little over 0.1%, or dead last among 22 countries, obviously failing to meet the commitment (In fairness, only 5 of 22 nations actually managed to follow through on this commitment and Canada only managed about 2.25% of GNP). Investigate further and you will see that in 2000, Japan was the number one contributor of foreign aid in raw dollars. The US surpased them in 2001 mostly due to 600 million in transfers to Pakistan post 9/11 (much of it in the form of military aid) and a 12% depreciation in the value of the yen.

But to really examine the reality of foreign aid, one has to look even more closely at who is getting the money, who controls the money and what strings come attached.

A large percentage (about 31%, I believe) of foreign aid goes to what are considered middle income countries. About two thirds of US aid goes to Israel and Egypt alone (this figure is from the World Bank), with Russia being the number one gross recipient of aid from the US. The top ten is rounded out mostly by middle income states. Sub-Saharan Africa, widely recognised as the poorest place on earth does not place in the top ten.

To make matters worse, it is estimated that 70% of US aid money never leaves the US. It is spent on "development assistance", hiring consultants and think tanks to formualte economic strategies for the nations it assists. This too, is according to the World Bank.

The strings that come with foreign aid are widely cited as the greatest failure of OECD/IMF style foreign aid. The IMF demands the opening of markets, privatisation, termination of subsidy and tariffs and other measures. But OECD nations, the US chief among them, frequently subsidise industry and impose tariffs to protect their markets to the detriment of other nations attempting to enter the market.

"Industrialised countries devoted US$353 billion (seven times total ODA spending) to protecting agriculture in 1998, according to UNDP. 5 At the same time, the policy choices available to governments in poorer countries are narrowed by conditionalities imposed by international financial institutions and bilateral donors. As reports from NGOs in Asia illustrate, southern governments are forced to privatise and liberalise, 6 while OECD restrictive practices, tariff and non-tariff barriers cost developing countries US$160 billion a year.7 This translates into real human suffering which the World Bank recently quantified as `welfare losses of US$19.8 billion'8." - From "The Reality of Aid" 2002 report to the OECD.

The protectionist measures employed by the US and EU alone ammount to several times their aid spending and create losses in affected countries that effectively negate the funds they receive in aid.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

Here are some more facts from the report:

"`The IMF starts with the truth that budget deficits should remain small in order to preserve macroeconomic stability. Then it demands budget austerity of impoverished countries to the point where those countries can't even keep their people alive _ so depleted are the budget resources for public health, food transfers to the poor, and the like. In addition, the IMF has repeatedly insisted on debt servicing that exceeds the combined spending of the health and education ministries"

"`In 1998, the IMF, the World Bank and other international agencies loaned Indonesia more than US$50 billion. But with the bailout came stringent restrictions….the IMF-imposed austerity measures exacerbated the mushrooming social crisis……Between 1997 and 1998, according to the World Bank, the number of Indonesians living in poverty doubled.' "

"When defending reforms against the charge that economic goals were being pursued at the expense of people living in poverty, the IFIs have traditionally pointed to `the importance of social policies to ease the burdens that reforms impose'. But examining whether people in poverty have been adequately protected during adjustment, the Bank sponsored African Poverty at the Millennium report is clear. `Have the poor been protected?- the answer must be no.'"

`The IFIs (International Financial Institutions) have continued to recommend, and where they can insist, on conditions which have the net effect of exposing developing countries to global competition while curtailing the scope for national measures that can promote social inclusion and poverty reduction. Developing countries need to seek strategic integration, rather then full integration, into the international financial system, establishing mechanisms designed to regulate and control international capital flows in order to reduce instability.'

And now to dispell some myths about foreign aid and free market doctrine using Africa as the case study:

* Africa has received increasing amounts of aid over the years - in fact, aid to Sub-Saharan Africa fell by 48% over the 1990s
* Africa needs to integrate more into the global economy - in fact, trade accounts for larger proportion of Africa's income than of the G8
* Economic reform will generate new foreign investment - in fact, investment to Africa has fallen since they opened up their economies
* Bad governance has caused Africa's poverty - in fact, according to the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), economic conditions imposed by the IMF and the World Bank were the dominant influence on economic policy in the two decades to 2000, a period in which Africa's income per head fell by 10% and income of the poorest 20% of people fell by 2% per year"

"Thus, status quo in world relations is maintained. Rich countries like the US continue to have a financial lever to dictate what good governance means and to pry open markets of developing countries for multinational corporations. Developing countries have no such handle for Northern markets, even in sectors like agriculture and textiles, where they have an advantage but continue to face trade barriers and subsidies. The estimated annual cost of Northern trade barriers to Southern economies is over US $100 billion, much more than what developing countries receive in aid." -- Puppets on purse strings, Down To Earth, (Centre for Science and Environment) Vol 10, No 23, April 30, 2002

If you want more I can go all day here. But the facts are out there in plain sight, viewable by anyone with the ability to do a simple web search. Much the same can be said for all of the claims I have made here.

But I guess the OECD and World Bank are exaggerating as well?

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

OTB: Don't make me explain economic imperialsim all over again. I'm getting tired of repeating myself. Suffice to say the US is quite expansionist within the new framework of understanding what expansionism is.

I don't think I minmize anything by drawing the comparison. If anything, the comparison may exaggerate the US position. Also note that I didn't say I beleived this to be true, just that the argument could be made.

As for the US record of beating the bad guy, I'd suggest you have an oversimplified view of the situation. I've rattled off countless examples of careless intervention which only resulted in further terror and repression for the victims of the intervention, the people you claim to be helping. If you want to debate your intent, I'm open to that, but debating the outcome is a frivolous excercise given the evidence.

And again if you noted my thoughts on economic imperialism you would see that many nations are little more than client states to the US.

Kinder/gentler is bad moral relativism. Sure the Soviets killed millions. So did Germany. But so did/does the US. It may or may not have killed fewer millions, it may have done so less directly, but the fact remains that it was/is done and it was/is wrong.

And your statement about our defiance is well taken, but I think more and more nations will be defining themselves by challenging US authority.

PS- The landmine comment was probably a poor choice. Perhaps if armies hung around to clean them up after a dirty little war, fewer innocents would die from them. As it stands, landmines have probably killed more civillians outside of a conflict than soldiers within the conflict. Strikes me as a very inefficient weapon system.

 

[*d*]

Re: Re: contradictions

D,

As usual you think so much you outsmart yourself. I provided that seed article as "chum" bait. I know the audience. Rather than shut down the thread by slamming you immediately, I opened it up for the one sided onslaught that followed.

EBS

Why not just admit that you changed your stand on civil rights, instead of pushing double talk.

As for America being like Nazi Germany -well, I'd say fascism may not be too far off.
http://tao.ca/~ccsc/fascistlist.htm
According to the findings of Amesty International, the US is using the 'war against drugs' as a cover up for illegal activity in Columbia. The US is illegally sponsoring the Columbian military, not to fight drugs but to turn Columbia into a place of cheap resourses for muli-national companies as part of a 'Free Trade Area of the Americas'. The method used to implement this activity is through brutal violence. I'm also disappointed that Canada is not totally innocent in this matter.

d

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

<<The timing of Bush expressing concern about Iraq was clearly leveraged for the mid-term election. The merits of the case don't change regardless. Those merits have nothing to do with terrorism or a direct or eminent threat to the US. They have everything to do with a stable Middle East Gulf and economic security for all the world economy. Every last one of those European pigs are feeding at the oil trough. They are looking for their cheap secure oil supply as well. We have a stalemated engagement with Iraq at this time, one which is causing us to expend our resources with no clear longterm benefit. It's pretty easy for the santimonious blowing hot gases out of their backside to offer self righteous judgement. But I consider the source..they want the same thing we do. Only one problem..we're the only ones capable of prosecuting a solution.>>

I'm glad you are finally getting it, EBS. War for oil. Good to see you can admit it's all about resource control now. Your true colors shine through....

I will debate one thing you say here, the longterm benefit is very clear. World oil production from the current top sources is set to peak in about 10 years. With control over Iraqi oil resources as well as having established the means to a pipeline to the former Soviet oil fields by "stabilising" Afghanistan, the US will have secured it's position for the future of world oil resource control. The benefits of that should be clear to anyone.

<<Just remember as the Ottaman's remind us.."to the victor belongs the Sultantate" a precursor of "to the victor belongs the spoils". In the hierarchy of the hunt, the cubs get the leftovers..hehe..>>

Again, very telling of your true feelings. Interesting that you seem to position your country in a predatory context. Thanks again for your honesty.

And BTW, didn't the Ottoman empire fall, just like any other empire? Seems a strange formula to emulate.....

<< When I define myself as an American, I don't take in consideration the values or beliefs of Canadians. That's why we are who we are...capiche? >>

Futhermore, you don't consider anyone else, even those you pay so much lip service to. Values? bah. Beliefs? bah. Profits? Now there's something you like...

And that's why the rest of the world has a problem with you, capiche?

So, to recap, nice job betraying your true feelings here, EBS. I knew it would come out sooner or later.

War on Iraq = War for oil

America = Imperialist plunderer and privateer

American Policy = couldn't care less about the values and beliefs of anyone else.

You said it, not me....

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

An interesting study passed by me today. It dealt with the relationship of foreign aid to the defense spending of enemies of the donor country. It was drafted to explain the sharp drop in foreign aid spending after the end of the Cold War and collapse of the Warsaw Pact.

It showed very clearly that the 17 (at the time) OECD countries sharply increased foreign aid in response to increases in defense spending by the Warsaw Pact nations. The aid was directed to so called "swing nations", ones that may have gone either way in a conflict.

Examining the data closer, researchers found that the top spenders (in purely cash terms) were indeed using foreign aid as a strategic tool and a means to influence policy, not altruistic purposes like feeding the poor or debt relief. As soon as the Warsaw Pact threat was diminished, so too did the foreign aid diminish, to record post WWII lows despite record gains in GNP during the same period.

Now, this should be no surpirse to anyone and certianly there is strategic merit in doing this sort of thing. But I find it funny that people so often cite the generosity and moral superiority of the American government when they defend it when the facts show very clearly that it is all about strategy and protecting their interests, not any sense of moral duty to address suffering.

Let me also point out that EBS claims we spend so much money helping Afghanistan and North Korea. Neither country even rates on the top ten recipients of foreign aid from the US. The only Latin American country to rank is Colombia, but so much damage has been done by the US and it's proxy forces over the years in the region one wonders where the repairations are? The fact that Sub-Saharan Africa gets barely a nibble, when it is the region most in need, is probably the most telling example.

And why is it that Israel, an industrialised first world nation, gets the second largest piece of foreign aid? It couldn't be that they also are one of the largest purchasers of US weapons systems and have a very clear record of voting with the US in the Security Council? Alright now, everyone jump up and call me an anti-semite, then think about it for a moment. Israel has a pretty strong little economy going, 105 billion US GDP in 1999. They spend a whole ton of cash on security and defense, not to mention intelligence. The IDF is widely recognized as one of the best equipped and trained military outfits in the world. It is estimated that 8 out 10 own a cellular phone. They can afford a world class army, arguably the best intelligence service in the world, the majority of people are well off enough to have cell phones, but they need billions in foreign aid money?? Am I missing something here? I know the Palestinian uprising has cost them about a 4% loss in GDP since 2001 and their tech industry is suffering due to the conflict and the volatile nature of the industry, but come on! Sure they have a trade deficit, but it is mostly made up of captial goods that will become future growth. And they enjoy a AAA credit rating from the ECGD. There are hordes of needy countries who would die fo this kind of economic profile. Yet they receive peanuts.

In fact, I'm anticipating a study from a PIRG about the relationship of weapons purchases to foreign aid. I'm expecting to get my hands on it any day now. Should prove to be interesting.

 

[*d*]

Dr Gonzo, you amaze me. Your in-depth research is top-notch. I wish to thank you for cutting through the noise of propaganda on this board and delivering the facts.

d

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

Thanks *d*, I'm glad someone is paying attention. I'd like to thank you as well for stepping up to the challenge consistently and continuing to share and add to the debate. You've done some great work yourself and I for one appreciate it.

The fact is anyone can find this research, all that is required is a simple web search. True, I do have some pretty obscure reports come across my desk, but by and large this information is very much public knowledge accessible to anyone with the will to go out and find it. Most, sadly, don't want to be bothered with the task which makes it necessary for people like you and I to continue to promote the work of these groups and individual researchers.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

And there's more where that came from....

I'm sure EBS and his cronies will in all likelihood continue to call me a liar, an idiot, and claim that I'm exaggerating everything. I don't fault him. It's hard to escape conditioning, just ask Pavlovs dog.

Incidentally, I was just reviewing a report from the National Labor Committee on working conditions in El Salvador, one of the many nations EBS and others thinks owe us so much gratitude for helping. The findings should put to rest any notion that we give them any sort of meaningful employment or hope for the future. The one shred of hope it goes give us is that 63% of maquila exports are to the US, which gives American and Canadian citizens a lot of power to influence change.

Here are some quick facts from the report, detailing conditions at the Hermosa plant that manufactures apparel for Nike, Ohio State, Duke, Georgetown, North Carolina, Michigan and Arizona State Universities, Addidas and Puma:

"Workers are paid just 29 cents for each $140 Nike NBA shirt they sew--which means their wages amount to only 2/10ths of one percent of the garment’s retail price! These same workers are paid 30 cents for each $100 pair of NBA Nike shorts they sew. Here their wages amount to just 3/10ths of one percent of the retail price of the NBA shorts. For each $55 Nike Ohio State basketball shirt they sew, the Hermosa workers are paid just 22 cents, or 4/10ths of one percent if the retail price."


Mandatory pregnancy tests.

Obligatory overtime: 7-day work weeks during peak season, at the factory over 70 hours a week, some 19 1/2 hour shifts (6:30 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.), with workers forced to sleep on the factory floor.

Seriously contaminated drinking water – bacteria levels 429 times greater than internationally permitted norms.

Excessively high production quotas: women must attach 2000 sleeves to Nike T- each shift, sewing one sleeve every 15.3 seconds nonstop for 8.5 hours – paid two-tenths of a cent for every sleeve they sew.

Limited access to health care.

Codes of conduct meaningless.

Surveillance cameras monitor workers at all times.

No freedom of association – union organizers will be immediately fired: the workers explain "The company will never allow a union."

The Anatomy of Exploitation
Workers paid just 29 cents for each $140 NBA Nike shirt they sew: In January 2001, Lines #1 and #6 at the Hermosa factory produced NBA Nike team basketball shirts, for example "Lakers / #34 / O’Neal." The jerseys retail at the NBA store for $140. There are 50 workers on each of these production lines. For the 10 ½ hour shift, from 6:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., management assigned each line the mandatory daily production quota of 1,250. With three quarters of an hour off each day--one 15-minute break and 30 minutes for lunch--the workers were putting in a 9 ¾ hour shift. If they are paid their Seventh Day attendance/good behavior bonus, they will earn 75 cents an hour, and $7.36 for the 9 ¾ hours. The total daily payroll for all 50 workers on the line comes to $367.76. These same workers must complete 1,250 NBA Nike shirts each shift, meaning they produce $175,000 worth of garments. This allows us to calculate the direct labor cost to sew each $140 shirt, which comes to just 29 cents. So the workers’ wages amount to a shocking 2/10ths of one percent of the retail price of the NBA basketball shirt.


Wages:

The workers are paid according to the minimum wage in El Salvador, which does not come even close to meeting the most basic survival needs of the average sized family.

42 colones per day, equal to $4.80
60 cents an hour
With the 7th day attendance bonus, the workers earn 1,260 Colones per month, which breaks down to:

75 cents an hour
$ 6.03 a day (8 hour shift)
$ 33.19 a week (44 hour week)
$143.84 a month
$ 1,726.03 a year
(As in other factories, in Hermosa there is a lot of confusion among the workers regarding how their wages are actually calculated, since they are paid through direct bank deposit and do not get to keep a record of their pay stubs. They are only allowed to review their pay stub briefly on pay day while inside the factory and the stub must be returned the same day. Failure to return a pay stub leads to a fine of $5.71 – more than a day’s base wages.)


Some Daily Expenses for a single mother with three children. Her base wage: $4.80 a day
Round trip bus $ 1.14 Breakfast $ 0.91 Lunch $ 1.37 Supper for her family $ 1.95 Rent $ 1.68 Gas & electric $ 0.63 School $ 0.72 Milk $ 0.80 The base wage meets just half of even these very limited daily expenses.


The report goes on to detail each of these points, and examines life at many other factories in the region. I haven't finished reading the whole thing yet but it paints a pretty clear picture in my mind.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

EBS

Well, I've given you more than a full week to respond, extending to you what I see is an ample grace period for the Thanksgiving holiday. Yet I see no rebuttal.

Your silence is deafening.

Can we take this to mean that this thread is closed?

Can we further take this to mean that you recant your hasty accusations against me, calling me a propagandist and a liar? Given that you can provide no credible argument in support of this and the fact that you argued yourself into virtual agreement with me, what are we left to conclude?

Frankly all you have managed to prove is that your argument, opinions and facts are completely inconsistent and you lack the ability to back any of it up with any sort of research or documentation. And you don't help yourself when you try and explain away your incongruity by claiming you are "baiting" people. Few things are worse than a hypocrite who can't even face up to it, prefering to hide behind distortions and claim "devils advocate" when called on it.

I'm happy to carry on debating with you, however futile the effort might seem now. But if this is how you choose to end things I think an apology is in order for the personal slanders you threw at me. Your defamation is groundless against the wealth of evidence I have provided to the contrary and as such I ask that you retract your insults at the very least.

In specific, your accusation that I'm a liar and spread inflammatory misinformation. I think I've proven my case and it may be inflammatory but it's the truth unless you can provide some new evidence to contradict me. I don't mind people disagreeing with me by any means. I do mind being called a liar.

You may, of course, opine that I'm an idiot all you like. You are welcome to your opinion and estimation of my intellect. You may want to reconsider that estimation, however.

Unless of course the idea of being outwitted by an "idiot" is preferable to you.