Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kobuchi
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. |
Case Law…lets see it. Again, this law is almost 30 years old let us see how this law played out in the courts. We don’t need to wait for the Presbyterian Church to go to court, let’s look at few cases that have been ruled upon including appeals and judicial reviews up to the US Supreme Court. (I’m waiting)
No doubt these laws were enacted to protect Israel but I’m sure that was addressed a page or two ago.
What is your point…are you anti-Semitic?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kobuchi
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.
|
Was their a point you where trying to make?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kobuchi
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.
|
Don't be rediculos there will not be any type of trade war.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kobuchi
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?
|
You’re kidding right? Japan protects its farmers big time. We (California) are one of the largest producers of rice in the world and we have been trying to export rice to Japan for decades but the import laws in Japan insulate the rice farmers from competition. Personally, I don’t blame them for doing it. Like I said you have to ensure you maintain a base for certain industries.