Congress Should Impose Trade Sanctions on Google-China Deal

Human Events Online ^ | February 2, 2006 | Thomas Lipscomb

[at bay]

"However, There is no way...

These are words I rarely take heed of, nor really undertand what they mean. You have repeated many of your earlier arguments as if repetition makes them stronger. The choices are not play ball or else. I am not afraid of the thought police and the thugs that slaughtered so many in Tianamen square.

Let's suppose that an american company had a poison gas to sell to the Nazis, and we were not yet at war with them, and the company knew the gas would be used to kill innocent gypsies and other minorities. But they also had many good pharmaceutical products to sell that might help a German child who otherwise might die.

This is, of course, a more extreme analogy, but applicable nevertheless. The company would be allowed in to Germany to train locals in how to make the poison and the good pharmaceuticals so would have a chance to influence local thought to a very limited degree. The gestapo would be watching every move, just as Chinese thugs watch every move between americans and chinese. The Germans "we will control what products you sell here." The company must say, sorry, you're going to misuse one of our products, we decline to offer you that."

Google is actively engaging in collaberating with Red Chinese thought police to misuse one of their products.

The results are misinformed Chinese which might be the most dangerous result our nation could fear.

You make the assumption that even if some of Google's work product in China , (and we don't have any idea what per cent of their work product is corrupted), works towards the government's aim at controlling the thoughts of it's citizens, they are better off than if they had nothing from that company.

Well even Google is not offering certain products, so it is just a matter of where one draws the line. I believe a company is unethical if it does what Google is doing and must be taken to task for it instead of getting a free pass as you advocate.

There will still be tyranny in China a month from now, and likely years from now. Progress is often slow..."

Like the Berlin wall. Took'em how many months after Reagan said "Tear down that wall!"

God I hate defeatist drivel. There is no benefit to being a mouthpiece for the Red Chinese government. That is what Google is doing, and to the extent that you are resigned to it, you're doing it as well.

[untrained skeptic]

"However, There is no way...

These are words I rarely take heed of, nor really undertand what they mean.

When you can't explain any practical way for your ideas to work, yet you viciously attack other poeple's ideas that they can explain how they might work with hate filled rhetoric, you become part of the problem, not part of the solution.

You have repeated many of your earlier arguments as if repetition makes them stronger.

I repeat the questions you keep avoiding answering because the answers don't support your ideas.

The choices are not play ball or else.

No, the choices are to play ball or not play ball as I have said over and over again. I haven't insisted that they have to play ball. I've merely asked you to justify how Google not polaying ball will serve the Chinese people better. That's the question you won't answer.

I am not afraid of the thought police and the thugs that slaughtered so many in Tianamen square.

You ae the though police yourself. It's different thoughts you police. You don't threaten violence. However, you still attack those who disagree with you rather than argue your point so people can make rational decisions.

Let's suppose that an american company had a poison gas to sell to the Nazis, and we were not yet at war with them, and the company knew the gas would be used to kill innocent gypsies and other minorities.

Another inciteful Nazi misrepresentation? Google is not selling some to the Chinese government that they can use to harm their people. Google's customers are the CHinese people. The Chinese people get to choose if they use it or not. They get to determine if it has value to them or not.

This is, of course, a more extreme analogy, but applicable nevertheless. The company would be allowed in to Germany to train locals in how to make the poison and the good pharmaceuticals so would have a chance to influence local thought to a very limited degree. The gestapo would be watching every move, just as Chinese thugs watch every move between americans and chinese. The Germans "we will control what products you sell here." The company must say, sorry, you're going to misuse one of our products, we decline to offer you that."

Really bad anology.

Don't sell them gas. Sell the or donate the drugs to help the children to the Red Cross, or give them to people who will smuggle them in or drop humanitarian supplies for the people by airlift.

Delivering things is reletaively easy. We make efforts to deliver information to the Chinese people, at least near the borders. The difficulty is two way communication where tehy get to request the information they want. That's the business that Google is in, not simply the information deliver business.

You make the assumption that even if some of Google's work product in China , (and we don't have any idea what per cent of their work product is corrupted), works towards the government's aim at controlling the thoughts of it's citizens, they are better off than if they had nothing from that company.

Well if you could read and write Chinese, you could find out somewhat for yourself. The web site www.google.cn is accessable from my computer here in the US, I just don't understand their language.

Let me ask your question a different way. Since the Chinese people already live undercensorship, why not ask if Google even in it's censored form gives people more access to information than they had without Google and ask if it benefits the Chinese people more than not having Google?

Why is your way of looking at the issue more valid? I'm looking it from the point of view of the benefit to the Chinese people. You look at it as the CHinese government is evil and working within their laws is evil.

I guess you thing the Red Cross is evil since they have to operate under the laws of oppressive governments when they go into those countries to help people.

God I hate defeatist drivel.

China's opening up for economic development has raised the standard of living in China significantly. China government is definately unacceptable unacceptable, however the "widespread detention and slaughter of civilains" isn't happening. Detentions are still happening. They are arrecting and locking up dissidents in a completely unacceptable manner, but it cannot be widespread, because if it were they could not attract the international investment. They couldn't get westerners to come and work there to train their people.

Not merely trade, but actuall cooperation between Chinese copanies and American companies is opening doors, and it's forcing the Chinese government to loosen it's grip a bit. I'm not saying that the Chinese people are free to speak their minds or that they are free to listen to those who do is they disagree with the government in a way the government objects to.

However, they are a bit more free than they once were. It's a start.

You're the one who discounts this despite the evidence. You're the defeatist that says it can't work and that it's all lies. You're the one spouting defeatist drivel and then attacking with misrepresentations and rhetoric.

You're doing everything you have accused me of doing in this thread.

You'r a hypocrit.

All I've done is suggest a different way of helping the Chinese people that you disagree with, yet can't really explain why it won work.

You've given your ideas, and I believe I have explained why they won't work. I din't just say "there is no way". I explained why it wouldn't work, and you can't explain why I'm wrong, so you attack me instead.