:The WTO is an entity that fosters free trade between nations, lowering tariff barriers and otherwise making the conduct of business a far more simple affair.
By trying to eliminate things which raise labour costs; tariffs that ensure the big foreign countries can't flood the local market with mass-produced imports and deprive the local producers of a living. Environmental standards which raise production costs. Health laws that protect the workforce. And so forth.
Doc, do you remember what happened when the British Empire tried to bolster up a multinational company by abolishing import tariffs on their product (tea) at the expense of the local traders? The locals dumped the tea into Boston Harbour. Your country probably wouldn't exist in its current form without it.
Are you now going to condemn the Boston Tea Party as damage to property carried out in the name of protectionists?
:It has, however, run afoul of the elite of the Left, making unfavorable rulings against representatives of that political sect and, to the present date, successfully resisting infiltration by that body. Thus it, like the Catholic Church and other similarly "resistant" political entities, must be destroyed.
"When I get food to the poor, I am called a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, I am called a Communist".
: Apparently, the present techniques authorized are apparently the circus of protest and 'civil disobedience', along with smear campaigns in the media. If these tactics fail, perhaps some terrorist actions by the more actively violent elements of this group (Greenpeace, perhaps) might be sanctioned.
You *really* believe that Greenpeace are terrorists?!
Even by your standards, that's pretty mind-bending ignorance, Doc.
Greenpeace International (or "Imperial Greenpeace" as they're more commonly known) is a multinational multimillion dollar group of people somehow convinced that they can reform industry into a load of fluffy faintly-green corporates. The last time they did anything really radical was in about 1980; their only useful function is that they do at least keep the general public aware of green issues.
And if you're talking "terrorism", examine the activities of oil companies worldwide; which are more than happy to use helicopter gunships against unarmed peaceful protestors (as Chevron did in Nigeria) or death squads against opponents (as BP do in Colombia).
: Ghandhi was a master of these techniques, using them to sell the dubious proposition that rulership by a domestic clique of authoritarians was preferable to the far more efficient (and less partial) dominion exercized by Great Britain. His own hatred of the British rivaled that of Hitler; in any case, the actions of Herr Fuhrer during the Battle of Britain might explain the support of that Indian guru for the leader of the Nazis.
Exactly which planet do you live on, Doc?
Gandhiji was not fond of the British; but he was not fond of the Nazis either; and the vast majority of the Free India movement supported the British in the Second World War. The group of independence fighters (the INA) who allied with the Japanese were led by Subhas Chandra Bose; a Bengali; and half of the INA division at Kohima were killed along with 70,000 Japanese by the British 4th and 7th Indian Divisions. Try improving your Indian history a bit.
Gandhi was *non-violent*; the Nazis were not. The followers of Nehru and Gandhi were against violence and terrorism and refused to support the Nazis.
"We do not approach the problem with a view to taking advantage of Britain's difficulties.... I should like India to play her full part and throw all her resources into the struggle for a new order."
(Nehru, speaking in Rangoon in 1939)
"There was no intention", he said, "that the Congress should harass the British Government in its present plight." (Patel, also 1939)
"For me, even if I stand alone, there is no participation in the war even if the Government should surrender the whole control to the Congress." (M.K. Gandhi, 1938)
In actual fact, the Congress at street level was more actively loyal than many of the British administrators;
"In the U.P. the ministers seemed willing to give full co-operation in prosecution of the war, while in Madras the Governor had to restrain Rajagopalachari, on the outbreak of hostilities, from detaining all Germans and seizing their bank balances, `whereupon he commented that the English seemed to want to wage war according to High Court rules'." (S.Gopal, 1939)
"In Bombay, Kher and his colleagues assured Governor Lumley of their support for Britain. "Not only that, Munshi had expressed a desire to participate more actively in the war effort" and he became Chairman of the War Committee, while a Cabinet Sub-Committee was formed with Kher, Munshi and another minister.
In Bombay, Kher had assured the Governor for many months that he would always keep the latter posted on developments and even when resignation had to be implemented it would be done `in a dignified and amicable manner'."
Mahadev Desai wrote to G.D.Birla, "...Bapu (Gandhi's nickname) alone is capable of holding back the tide of the civil disobedience movement and this he is already doing and will continue to do so till the very last." While regretting that his "views in regard to unconditional co-operation are not shared by the country", the prophet of non-violence went on declaiming that "this war may be used to end all wars".
- If Gandhi had wanted the British out of India, he would have been able to achieve it by keeping quiet; in fact, he repeatedly spoke out in defence of the English; he was very fond of England and was moved to tears at the possible destruction of the Houses of Parliament and Westminster Abbey when informed of war by Lord Linlithgow.
Don't they teach you international history in the U.S., Doc?
No wonder you lot have a lower literacy rate than we Europeans do.
: Thus, my personal action in this regard is to support the WTO, and to otherwise ignore the various issues presented. Thus, hopefully, I defuse the dual goals of the Left in this regard - to 'spotlight' a group that defies their interests, and to ensure that whatever subsequent publicity is generated in regards to this entity is negative (presumably, as "punishment" for their recalcitrance).
OK, so where do you stand with regard to bananas?
As you should know, the West Indian banana industry has kept going through favourable tariffs with Europe; which enabled them to compete with Chiquita, despite Chiquita's control of 90% of the banana market.
Chiquita complained to the WTO that this was against free trade, and that the West Indians would have to stop being subsidized; the US agreed, and Europe disagreed. The US duly imposed $500 million of economic sanctions on the EU to try and make it stop the subsidies; which it has done; causing the marked decline of the West Indian banana industry and thus the West Indian economy; since bananas were their staple agricultural crop.
Deprived of their main cash crop's profitability, the West Indies is having to resort to the other thing it grows very well; narcotics. Narcotics are a two-edged sword to a country; they are highly profitable, but the production is controlled by some highly unpleasant people; and the effects of narcotics on society (especially cocaine and heroin) are pretty destructive. A society which produces large amounts of narcotics rapidly divides into the very rich drug lords and the peons who have to work for them; an unjust and exploitative system. That's where the West Indies is heading, thanks to the WTO.
And since the Indies are on the US's doorstep, the US is going to provide a big fat market for any narcs the Indies produce.
So, thanks to Chiquita's donations to Clinton and protests to the WTO, the economy and social cohesion of the West Indies is going downhill fast and the US streets are being flooded with cheap drugs. Way to go, Chiquita.
Are you defending this?