No "We" in Any Society: US Citizens Beware!

[Nicool003]

Wrong. There is a "we"


But There Is No Try

My country has to buy US-made goods from third parties at prices times more than their real cost.

Maybe I mis-understand but I don't think I do. If you buy goods from third parties that bought them from the US then they are now in possession of them and can put the prices wherever they want to. It is not the fault of the US that you buy from the lousy people that you buy from. They by them from us and like I said, can put the prices wherever they want.

 

[Manuel_Silvio]

1. For Nicool003:

... If you buy goods from third parties that bought them from the US then they are now in possession of them and can put the prices wherever they want to. It is not the fault of the US that you buy from the lousy people that you buy from...

So if some US corporation has a monopoly on some product inside US borders and sells it at its favorite price, they're absolutely right. Matter of fact it isn't that way. Even the US, the home of free trade, has regulations that prevent monopoly and excessive profit on products. You have something called consumer rights (over quality and price). Why on Earth do you think Microsoft was sued? What is this anti-trust controversy all about?

The US has all the good for inside its borders but when it comes to thinking of others' rights they act like others are inferior.

Those lousy people who sell US-made goods and act as the middleman are all US's allies, they're members of the EU and/or some Arab countries. The US is well aware of this and sets the embargoes as sort of gift to those agent countries. That's why I call them "unfair" embargoes. They aren't there because my nation is guilty of some proven international crime; they're there to benefit the agents.

Plus that some of these goods are so essential that can't be denied even to a real enemy, let alone my country that has no power against the US (but they treat my nation like an enemy for they always need a "them" to place "us" against in order to ensure their national unity is maintained). There are certain chemicals used for the manufacturing of some basic medicines (these chemicals have no military use). There are expensive drugs for heart conditions and some other severe diseases. There are machines used in blood treatment after it's taken from blood donors (they do have military use but you can't tell people to die because some machine has military use).

My country had to buy all of these so it was forced to pay many times more and lose the funds it needed so hard for development.

The US, on the other hand, needs raw material for its industries. The stream of raw material is provided by many undeveloped countries that’ve nothing but unrecoverable natural resources. Whenever one of these countries has tried to cut down the supply in order to increase the prices or to take some advantage of its customers, the US has canceled out this effort with either militant action or conspiracy and deception.

If this game has some rules (like that you say the possessor has rights over whatever the possession) the rules apply to everyone. The US can't play the game all to its own benefit. There's something called "mutual" benefit that the US authority seems to be unaware of.

It's unfair to oblige my country to sell its resources at a limited price but force it into buying its needs at unrestricted prices times more than the real costs.

 

[russ_watters]

If it was my nation's...

You keep referencing your nation, but you won't tell us what nation it is. Unless we know there is no discussion possible.

And the row of asterisks was there to set that part of the post out: Your opinion appears based on personal experience and your perceptions of the US's actions toward your country. It is essential that we know who we are talking to in order to have an informed discussion. I will tell you pretty much anything about me you want to know (within reason).

 

[Manuel_Silvio]

1. For russ_waters:

You keep referencing your nation, but you won't tell us what nation it is. Unless we know there is no discussion possible.

I said it may rise unconscious hositlity and apologized. Do you mean perhaps I'm not telling the truth about my nation and you have to compare my claims to some more creditable sources? If you really need it I'll risk telling you. Do you really need it?

 

[Manuel_Silvio]

I apologize again! I can't tell you but I guess you already know where I'm from. I've given so much detail.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
I said it may rise unconscious hositlity and apologized. Do you mean perhaps I'm not telling the truth about my nation and you have to compare my claims to some more creditable sources? If you really need it I'll risk telling you. Do you really need it?

If you look through this forum, you'll see there has been very little hostility in it - and none from me. The reason I (and others) want to know is to compare your claims with my own knowledge (and your claims have been pretty specific). Right now I can't do that. If you want to continue this discussion we need to know what you are talking about. Your choice.

 

[Manuel_Silvio]

Well, I think I'd better keep it for me. I draw back. I take all my claims back and thank you for your time. Thank everyone for their time.

Until now I've used too many generalizations like "my country" and "my nation". I shouldn't have done so. I retreat back to my being "I" and from now on speak only on my behalf.

And I haven't been personally wronged neither by the US nor by any other country/nation/government.

Thanks.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Well, I think I'd better keep it for me. I draw back. I take all my claims back and thank you for your time. Thank everyone for their time.

Until now I've used too many generalizations like "my country" and "my nation". I shouldn't have done so. I retreat back to my being "I" and from now on speak only on my behalf.

And I haven't been personally wronged neither by the US nor by any other country/nation/government.

Thanks.

[?] Bizarre.

 

[Manuel_Silvio]

Does the question smiley mean I should explain more?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Does the question smiley mean I should explain more?

No. I said it was up to you. I guess that makes this discussion finished.

 

[Nicool003]

Do better research. Part of the reason if not most of the reason microsoft was sued was because it was becoming so big between computers, XBOX, and other technologies, that it became to powerful in the stock market and they are trying to breakit apart. Since it got so big it kept bringing in more and more mulah.

 

[damgo]

^^^ Whoa... you're not claiming Microsoft didn't engage in unfair, monopolistic, and patently illegal competitive practices, are you? On the Internet? God help you if you are... ;)

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Nicool003
Do better research. Part of the reason if not most of the reason microsoft was sued was because it was becoming so big between computers, XBOX, and other technologies, that it became to powerful in the stock market and they are trying to breakit apart. Since it got so big it kept bringing in more and more mulah.

Its a little more basic than that. MS flat out blackmailed (and still does) their customers, both OEM and end-user. That and their actions with regard to Java is what got them convicted.