Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Steel
Topic Started: Nov 10 2003, 06:09 PM (425 Views)
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Does being a Steelers fan count? :whistle:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
benetil
Nov 11 2003, 06:47 PM
Hi, Admiralbill_gomec.

I think there's some evidence that supports the generality that I allege - that politicians and public servants are tempted (by money or other favors) to betray the interests of the American public.

You mention the Clinton administration's "policies" toward China (perhaps giving technology, perhaps receiving campaign contributions . . . ). There are two other incidents (scandals) in history that stand out to me - the Hiss-Chambers Case and the Iran Contra Affair. Alger Hiss served time in prison. And if you believe that government "officials" broke the Law in Iran Contra and were then willing to hang some of the responsibility on someone like Oliver North, it further condemns - of course President Reagan was unable to recall . . .

But you said,
Quote:
 
From my point of view, our politicians (and public servants) are more responsive to the demands of foreign special interests than they are to the longer term needs of workers here in the US.


The Alger Hiss case? Alger Hiss was a communist spy. How is that being beholden to a foreign government? How is that being more responsive to foreign special interests? Hiss served nearly five years for perjury. Hiss claimed he was innocent, but Soviet files made public in 1995 said otherwise.

Iran Contra: How is that case being more responsive to demands of foreign special interests? In November 1986, President Reagan said that we sold arms to Iran back in 1983. It was supposed to be for improving relations but was to secure the release of hostages in the middle east. Profits from the sale were funneled to the Nicaraguan Contra rebels. So, what do we have: we secured hostages... that is a domestic interest, not a foreign interest. We sent the profits to rebels in another country, which allowed them to buy arms from us. In other words, we didn't spend taxpayer money. This was not tacit support of the rebels, and once again NOT being more responsive to "the demands of foreign special interests than they are to the longer term needs of workers here in the US".

Lastly, the "longer term needs of workers" sounds very communistic. You might wish to rephrase.

I agree that Saudi Arabia is a threat. The reason we haven't steamrollered over them is because they've been incredibly cooperative of late. Why? Because of the connections between the Saudi royal family and other wealthy Saudi families with terrorists (especially al Queda). We know it, and the Saudis know we know. They know their days are numbered. I wouldn't be surprised if they were toppled in the next few years.

You mentioned that the INS has a very weak grip on who is here in the US. Here's the problem... every time we TRY to find out who is here, people on your side of the aisle (i.e., the left) scream about fascism, Nazi tactics, and whine about how the USA PATRIOT Act will turn us into a police state. This is a lose-lose situation, and the left knows it. They will scream about "freedom" and then in the next moment turn around and condemn the Bush administration for not doing anything about domestic terrorism. This is hypocritical and downright criminal. The left is going to have to decide which side they are on, America's side or their own side. Back during WWII, Republicans were the minority party. Did you see them attempting such treasonous activities as claiming that Roosevelt "hatched" the raid on Pearl Harbor with his cronies while sitting around the pool at Wams Springs? (Ted Kennedy did this to George W. Bush back in September.) This has to end... NOW.

As for escorting Osama's family out of the US, are you insinuating that we let terrorists go? We did not "escort" them out of the country... we DEPORTED them. Please note that none have returned. Why? Because they can't.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Hi Wichita,
I would probably get on very well with your dad (lots of things in common). It takes a special kind of person to survive the steelworking work environment and thrive in it.

The situation you describe is how it WAS here in Newcastle - kids could pretty much count on a labouring job at the steelworks, or an apprentiseship if they couldn't hack school and job for as long as they wanted one with the steelworks or the subsidiary plants (Tubemakers, the Dockyard, Wire and Rope, CommSteel or heavy engineering plants that sub-ed for the Steelworks) provided they didn't get caught thieving, or proved to be trouble makers, or were lay abouts.

Kids who went onto year 12 and did well had a good chance of a traineeship (for a Diploma or Certificate) or a cadetship (uni).

Many thousands of people emmigrated from Germany, Poland, Russia, France and the UK (and lots of other places in the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's and even the early 1980's) to Australia as families under Steelworks sponsorships and they made tremendous contributions in building the steelworks and my local community.

This all pretty much dried up in the mid 80s and the Steelworks took on fewer and fewer kids.

I worry about my children who will not have the same opportunities as my generation did - the job situation locally is even more bleak for school leavers (I can't recall seeing any apprentiseships, traineeships or cadetships advertised lately - kids are doing their Higher School Certificates and Matriculating now) and there are no opportunities for them).
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
At the end of WWII a lot of local churches sponsored people from Europe - primarily Germany. They could come here, get work at the plant and get relief from taxes for 5 years while they built a new life. Most retired before the industry started to go fortunately, but their kids had to make different plans.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Tariffs distort free markets. American steel producers either need to get more efficient and compete with the competition or they go bust, thats free market capitalism which is what the USA urges everyone to adopt. The tariffs are damaging British interests.

What I fail to understand, you do this to you friends.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
Quote:
 
What I fail to understand, you do this to you friends.


I couldn't decide whether this was a retorical 'you' or a specific 'you' referring to the USA. So, if it was rhetorical please ignore this response ;)

Anyway, I pointed out earlier that the EU has for a long time imposed specific tarrifs on American goods (including steel) to protect European industry. They have, in fact, been imposing tarrifs on US steel since before the Bush administration imposed tarrifs on steel which started this to begin with. I think that it is now very hypocritical of the EU to complain about this.

Anyway, I don't know why (rhetorical) 'you' would impose tarrifs on your friends. I am against it and in disagreement with the Bush administration on this. I feel that protectionism may help a particular domestic interest that it is intended to protect but at the expense of the country it is intended to protect and has a net bad effect.

I say free trade with the EU, Japan and the Americas.

Nice to see you back ds9074 :)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
As far as I'm aware any tariffs the EU imposes are legal in a WTO sense. The US ones dont seem to be. I personally dont like tariffs, I basically think free markets are best a generating wealth in the long term. Some times markets fail, but thats a different topic...
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
ds9074
Nov 14 2003, 08:10 PM
The US ones dont seem to be.

hmmm
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
The WTO allows tarrifs if a domestic industry is in dire straights of some sorts. This describes the US steel industry, but I guess it is more dire if it is European steel workers. :lol:

So it is just opinion of the WTO when you get down to it and I wonder who is making these descisions in the WTO?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
38957
Nov 14 2003, 08:17 PM
So it is just opinion of the WTO when you get down to it and I wonder who is making these descisions in the WTO?

Thats why it SEEMS to be...


It alwasys SEEMS like you are right and the othere guy is wrong.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
ds9074
Nov 15 2003, 12:10 AM
As far as I'm aware any tariffs the EU imposes are legal in a WTO sense.

Perhaps they are involving steel, but there are not across the board. The challenge process in the WTO is on-going; no country/group is always right nor always wrong according to the WTO.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Register Now
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus