Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lothar5150
Let’s not speculate on how the law should work in theory. Show me some case law. This has been on the books for 25 years.
|
Won't answer the question, eh? Well I'll show you why I posed that question, phrased just so. From the Office of Antiboycott Compliance, Examples of Boycott Requests:
----------
"Goods of Israeli origin not acceptable."
----------
Case law? But that would prove my second point that the
spirit (though not the letter) of the law is pro-Israel, and everyone knows it. You won't see the law applied in defense of other countries. OK then let's see what happens when the Presbyterian Church decides to openly divest from Israel:
Boycott Watch - Presbyterian Church Violates US Antiboycott Laws . But watch out for these guys, they also pen "balanced" open letters like "Boycott Watch to Duke University: Do You Stand With Us, Or The Terrorists?" Anyhow, they're lawyers, plainly.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lothar5150
No Halabja is more comparable to what the Turks did to the Armenians. Kobuchi dead is dead, no doubt. However, circumstances and intent are always factors.
|
Both sides saw it as strategic, that's why they fought over it so long, why the town kept changing hands. I think the intent was purely military, without much consideration for civilians in the crossfire, and then finally
no consideration. The circumstance was desperate, brutal attrition warfare. They put military objective before the lives of local civilians. For this those soldiers and commanders are guilty of a crime against humanity.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lothar5150
Self-interest is modeus operandi of all involved in free trade. That doesn’t mean lie, cheat or steal...
|
That's right. Still your trading partners are now authorised to retaliate. US government should not have tested the law you now acknowledge. You see that behaviour harms us all. Why I put "self interest" in quotes - it's pavlovian mindset and if one insists on living it the others finally play that game by applying negative reinforcement.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lothar5150
For instance, agriculture is an industry where we need insure our ability to produce food our population. Lumber, mining of certain base metals, transportation etc… also fall into this category. Not that I think these industries should not have to compete with foreign goods or services but we do need to insure that we maintain the industrial capability.
|
So in that light what should Japan do? Seems to me all your trade partners have a greater problem with potential self-sufficiency. Shouldn't they protect or subsidise their industries even more then?