Boycott & computer products.

[MarkTime]

As someone who works in the News, I for one say it's the last place you should turn to find out

Here, here.  I wasn't planning on talking on this subject...but lets address it.

Fact: A mexican gets a state issued drivers license.  Why?  Because he knows how to drive and he applied...someone reports that to the news, and we get a big story.

NEWS HEADLINE: Driver's license being issued to illegal aliens.

What is really happening...driver's licenses are for driving skills, DOT is not an immigration agency.
But because of the war frenzy, and general hatred, it tries to become one anyway...

Fact: Legal residents now denied drivers licenses...Why?  because the DOT doesn'tt understand the intricacies of the BCIS and how the 'out of status' levels that don't imply fault, and may, indeed be their own fault..

What the news reports:  NOTHING

Don't worry so much about the news, the regular news is just a certain type of sensationalism that we are used to...but not any different from rags like the National Enquirer.

[alx]

@smerf

Not one of my American dollars will go to france or germany for a long, long time.

I take it that you won't be upgrading to OS3.5 or any of the next-gen Amiga systems? :-)

Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but boycotting companies just because their goverments have one idea is pointless.  Plenty of people in the US don't support the war, and plenty in France/Germany do.

Completely one-sided views like yours will only give people the impression that all Americans are mindless Bush supporters with no concern for other people.

Boycott other countries is absolutely nonsense! I would understand that u don`t wanna got to holliday to that countries-but not buying their products? I`m buying something `cause its good and I like it. Why should I change this?
War is never the best solution-but now we have one and  its better gonna be a successfull one.

Stop that stupid boycott things!

[zee4]

Hey Microsoft's American...lets show our glorious leaders what we're made of!

Microsoft = The Freedom OS!
Linux = some pinko euroweany hack

Who's with me?!  
(and if you're not, well maybe that axis of evil just got bigger)

True fact: "Axis of Evil", originally "Axis of Hate" was coined by a Canadian- David Frum, former speech-writer to GWB.

Both Mr. Bush and Blair have stockpiled WMDs in their country. And even worse, they both have nuclear bombs.

So, just for justice we should boycott all americans and britons

[that_punk_guy]

f*** it man, boycott everything/

I wouldn't expect a boycott of all non-American produce to work once the population of that fine country realises they might have to start paying the wages to the people making them!!!

@smurf...
You are seriously warped, man.
 :pissed:

[filson]

mikeymike wrote:
I would feel more inclined to boycott any French products after the defacing of the war memorial, that was just sick.

what is sick is sending 300.000 troops to kill countless of innocent people, regardless of missperception, when a team of SAS troopers could have wacked Sadam and his sons in 24 hours. that is sick. but you don't win any election campains on those kind of actions

[MarkTime]

Hey everyone, the real issue is not with the UN but with NATO.

The UN was always a dodgy institution that rarely could ever get anything done.  It isn't just the United States, but Russia too, and for that matter probably France, that couldn't ever get anything passed, always facing a veto from another country.

You don't think the United States ever veto'd anything?   We may complain about veto's now, but we certainly have veto'd plenty a resolution ourselves. (and I'm not saying we shouldn't have)

the bigger issue here, is that NATO was always supposed to support member states, and NATO heretefore was an effective organization...but that ended over this matter cause Germany and France blocked the notification of member state Turkey, over this war effort.  Now, NATO is a political machine and a joke just like the UN, and that represents a change, and a loss.

I really don't think anyone should boycott products based on their country of origin, and I don't think many people will....nevertheless France's economy is shaky with or without this boycott, and it looks like troubled waters ahead.

[cdfr]

These boycott sites are RIDICULUS
If USA people boycott these french companies that operate for most of them in the USA, if it has any negative effects it will be on the USA employees in these companies.
If these companies have to lay off people it will hurt nothing else than the USA economy.

BTW most of these international companies are "owned" by the people owning stocks and retirement plans.

[Turrican]

I already boycott every American and English product I can (especially CocaColla and McDonalds).

It is the minimum I can do to make this world a safer place! They won't pay their wars with my money!

[Dietmar]

You don't think the United States ever veto'd anything? We may complain about veto's now, but we certainly have veto'd plenty a resolution ourselves. (and I'm not saying we shouldn't have)

Indeed: France has hardly ever exercised its veto right in the security council (the last time was in the sixties, I believe). Germany doesn't even have a veto. Nor does Japan, the second-largest economy of the world. Most vetoes, by far (and virtually countless), come from the US. In that sense, US diplomats have the most to lose if they sideline the UN.

Germany and France blocked the notification of member state Turkey, over this war effort. Now, NATO is a political machine and a joke just like the UN, and that represents a change, and a loss.

One has to be quite naive to believe that NATO isn't a political machine, especially in this context, when NATO was abused in an attempt to influence a UN decision (the US adminstration wanted to start NATO military planning during the UN process, two days (!) before the critical UN security council vote). It was a thinly veiled attempt to create the impression that the US had NATO backing before the ultimate vote. Which, as we now know, never took place. Contrary to public believe, the French didn't veto anything: the vote was evaded.

[amigamad]

what is sick is sending 300.000 troops to kill countless of innocent people, regardless of missperception, when a team of SAS troopers could have wacked Sadam and his sons in 24 hours. that is sick. but you don't win any election campains on those kind of actions

dont be stupid its more than just saddam and his son s that need to be got rid of if the people of iraq are to get freedom and what innocent people you moron there have been a lot of thought and skill put in to stop innocent people from getting hurt its there military that are getting wiped out your just spouting crap if thats what you believe.I support our boys and girls men and women of england america and all other countries that have the guts to put there life on the line for the people of iraq to have freedom.
 :-D  :-D

[MarkTime]

@Dietmar,

the notification of member states in NATO was, heretofore sacrosanct...

of course NATO is political at a certain level, so is everything, but it has also been an historically effective organization, whereas UN is notorious for being political to the extreme in that it was rarely ever effective.  Shall we say , it was once an order of magnitude more political than nato.

do you mean to suggest, avoiding the possibility of an 'impression' being created was a good reason to torpedo the effectiveness of NATO?   That doesn't sound like a very good reason to me.

Notification of member states should have been sacrosanct...sure politicians will play their games, always...but some things should be out of play.

Now, with NATO, as with the UN, nothing is out of play...and its obvious that Nato will act as a 'collective'...only if by sheer coincidence allows that each individual state has the same interests...so much for NATO... it's done.

I think, that all the countries acted without honor to some extent.  France and Germany for torpedoing the effectiveness of NATO just to avoid the possibility that someone might read something into routine notifications....and the U.S. for not demanding the UN vote and allowing it to be veto'd....

Now nato is a joke, the U.N. is (still) a joke....

It's not a good day for international politics, though, to be frank, I am more concerned about the damage going on now, internally in the United States...but that is for another post.

pfff grow up guys, are you ten or something? oycotting a country just because its government has different views than yours is plain lame...

Most "French" products sold in the USA are actually manufactured there, do you really think that French companies charter boats full of tyres, yoghurts or razors?

French companies employ hundreds of thousands of Americans in their US subsidiaries, so you're just damaging your own economy when boycotting French goods...

[takemehomegrandma]

OK, I have stayed out of this war debate since it begun. Here is my view of things:

Many Americans seems to think that the US government have the world opinion with them in this case, and that France among others are some loners with a strange agenda. I am afraid that is not the case. The US president went to war without the UN's approval. USA has some countries with them (much thanks to alliances and agreements from the past, partly through threats, and they have also paid some good dollars to others for some support). But the rest of the world is actually pretty much against this war, and is against USA's initiative. Many would even say that the war is illigal.

I think that Saddam is a criminal. He is a danger, if not to the world, then at least to the citizens of Iraq. Dictatorship is never good. The world would be a much better place without him. My objections to President Bush's campaign does not regard this.

Since the second world war the United Nations has served as a security for the world stability. It has been a forum of diplomacy in which nations could discuss problems. It has been *the* way to sanction military actions when the *world* thought it would be necessary.

But the current US government (and it's few allies) went to war *against* the rest of the worlds approval. This results in at least one of the two conclusions:

1) The entire war is a crime against humanity, which is kind of interesting since the USA is the only country in the world that has been granted immunity towards war crimes. Neither president Bush, nor any of his generals or other officers can be brought to an international court to stand trial for their actions. The leaders of the former Jugoslavia could, but American leaders can't.

2) This is the new world order. The United Nations is now rendered useless and all countries can go to war whenever they feel it suits their needs.

This is *most* unfortunate for the future political stability of this planet. And it can not be made "undone" now.

If only President Bush could have managed to justify his war against Iraq to the world! Then the situation would have been different! But he couldn't. And his failure to do so (and by going to war against the will of the rest of the world) has in a very short time:

1) Damaged the United Nations. This is extremely severe to the future of this world.

2) Caused a crack in Nato. This is extremely severe to the post WW2 western countries.

3) Caused a crack in the European Union, which is bad for the entire future Europe.

4) Caused cracks in many governments. Some good UK ministers has even resigned.

5) Further damaged the stability in the Arab world.

6) Created thousands of new potential Bin Ladin's.

And he has crashed the US economy in the process.

It's so easy to raze what has taken so long time for the world to build up. Well, let's just hope that Bush's military forces actually manage to kill or capture Saddam this time. Otherwize he will propably just go to the Usama Holiday Resort to make plans of revange.

Please don't get me wrong on this. I *do* think that Saddam would serve this world in a better way as a corpse. And I *am not* against USA in any general way. I have been to the USA several times for both business and pleasure (California, Washington and Florida) and I really like the country as well as it's citizens I have met. This has nothing to do about that. But the long term consequences to the world from this campaign will remain long after the short term "profits" has been consumed.

Let's just say that I think that the world was a better and safer place back in Clinton's days. This whole mess is most unfortunate and I wish that it just would go away and that there will be a way to heal the world after this.

[takemehomegrandma]

BTW, US boycotts of french products because of the french opinion in this conflict is not a very good idea IMO. It might make sense for an American citizen that has been filled with President Bush's domestic nationalistic wartime propaganda. Sure. But to the rest of the world this is just a ridiculous. It will only be counter-productive and will add fuel to the fire. Nothing good can come out of this.