| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft, Amazon among American companies targeted in European boycott | |
|
||
| Time: 00:00 EST/05:00 GMT | News Source: Puget Sound Business Journal | Posted By: Todd Richardson | ||
|
Microsoft Corp. of Redmond and Amazon.com Inc. of Seattle are among American companies listed by a European group critical of the U.S.-led war in Iraq.
The group, calling itself Consumers Against War, has posted a list of American companies whose products they are boycotting on a Web site. Among those companies are American corporate giants, including Coca-Cola Co., Microsoft Corp., General Electric Co., Philip Morris International, McDonald's Corp., Pfizer, Levi Strauss, PepsiCo, Texaco, Apple Computer and Procter & Gamble.
Conspicuously missing from the list is Starbucks Corp., which has been expanding in Europe and which has often found itself the target of protesters and advocates of various worldwide issues.
"Let's go on boycotting American products and thus the American economy, which is responsible for this war," the group said on its Web site.
| ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 169 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:25:41 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 3/26/2003 12:07:16 AM |
| If they really wanted to hurt Americans they would stop exporting BMW's to the states. |
| #2 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 3/26/2003 2:15:51 AM |
|
JWM - Yeah, for some reason certain Republicans think France is our enemy instead of Iraq. Can't quite figure that one out.
Oh yeah, and don't send over Volkswagen and Mercedes either! Volvo, Jaguar and Saab are ok, they're American companies. :) |
| #3 By 2960 (156.80.64.132) at 3/26/2003 8:48:58 AM |
|
Mooz,
To a certain extent, I think you may be right. And it's not going to bet any better until US companies start building for the long-term future (you know, strong customer base, loyal experienced workforce, long-term product design decisions, etc...) instead of everyone above the $100,000 a year level trying to figure out how to get rich quick and retire at age 30. It's kind of odd, but the Tech industry could learn a lot from the Auto Industry. Parts of it at least. TL |
| #4 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 3/26/2003 1:17:59 PM |
|
French fries are not EU goods, and they haven't been renamed freedom fries pervasively.
France isn't our enemy, but this isn't the first time they've shown incredible resistance and friction towards the U.S. They did the same with the Libya conflict, and with the first Gulf War--which had very broad support. This is about a power play as much as or more than it is about a disagreement about how to handle Iraq. I don't think anyone expects them to buy into every U.S. foreign policy, but I can understand why those that fought and lost loved ones on their behalf are less than pleased with their continual disdain for anything American. |
| #5 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 3/26/2003 3:44:01 PM |
|
today,
If all French Fries in the United States assumed a different name, that doesn't consitute a boycott of French products. First of all, all the French Fries I eat are made from Idaho potatoes (OK, maybe a few from some other states jump in every so often). Secondly, renaming a product doesn't constitute a boycott of the product. If I make Freedom Toast in the morning, I'm still eating eggs, bread, and milk that were all produced locally. The renaming of common US foods from "French" to "Freedom" isn't a boycott. It is a political statement only. |
| #6 By 1643 (131.107.3.84) at 3/26/2003 3:52:43 PM |
|
#10 - If you don't support eliminating a man that leads IRAQ, you are against the US...this is known rapist, serial killer, etc. here. I would love if we could talk are way out of it, but try doing that to the person that kills your loved one...sometimes you need to back up talk with force, it is the only some people can be dealt with.
He had is chance to walk out scott free for his past crimes, now for the good of the world, the big bad US has to take the long term thinking approach. Be damned for the french to rebuke the US after so many american died to help there country...it's about loyaty, and the french have none. This post was edited by humor on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 at 15:54. |
| #7 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 3/26/2003 4:02:02 PM |
|
kev,
I think the Dixie Chicks scandal is hillarious. Don't know how the rest of the country stations in the US are dealing with it, but out here, they've all ceased playing their songs. I've heard rumors that people en masse are burning or otherwise destroying their CDs. Yesterday I heard that the Chicks have put up a link to a petition on their web site that supports their 1st Amendment right to free speach. IMO the Chicks' scandal is a great example of what makes the United States great. Despite the fact that the Chicks (and many others) are furious at President Bush, they aren't picking up guns to revolt. They are talking. Conservative talk, the Republican White House, the Republican Congress (and many others) are furious at the French, the Democrats, domestic doves, etc. They aren't jailing or murdering them. They are talking. People who are more interested in logic and truth than emotion, can listen to both sides and decide what to do about the issue. Our differences and respect for those differences is one of the things that makes this country great. IMO it is foolish to publically demonstrate against a war in progress. This seems to smack of Vietnam. If I or my brother or my friends were in Iraq now, I can't begin to say how I'd feel against my own countrymen protesting against me or my brother or my friends. IMO the time for protest is before the first shot is fired. I think Senator Daschle set a great example last week when he said (paraphrased) - we've had our differences in the past, but our troops are in battle and we all stand behind our commander in-chief. |
| #8 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 3/26/2003 4:50:37 PM |
|
Gilbert Gustave interviewed Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg trials...
We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction. "Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship." "There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars." "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." Isn't it scarey just how easy it really is? |
| #9 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 3/26/2003 5:01:16 PM |
|
BobSmith - "IMO it is foolish to publically demonstrate against a war in progress. This seems to smack of Vietnam."
In retrospect it is very well established fact that the protesters of Vietnam were right. However there is a signifigant difference between then and now. During the Vietnam era the soldiers themselves were treated very poorly, which was unfortunate as the soldiers were only following orders. Today it's just the administration who is being treated very poorly. Which is the appropriate group that anyone opposed to the war needs to direct their frustrations as they are the decision makers who led us to this. "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable." - Teddy Roosevelt |
| #10 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 3/26/2003 5:27:11 PM |
|
I don't think many people believe in blind patriotism, and I don't think that first amendment rights are being trampled on by the administration--are they asking people not to protest? Are they not letting peaceful protests take place? No one from the Bush administration has made a plea for no more protests or stopped a peaceful protest. If conservative radio is saying things about the protests, that is also free speech.
Regarding the Goering quote, there's an error in that argument--it assumes that people will be brain-dead pawns. Obviously with the protests going on, they are not. You could make an argument that they are fed propaganda by our government or by the media, but we have access to media from anywhere. Another way to look at it--if the Bush administration were to continue after Iraq and go into other nations, I think you'd quickly see support disappear. At that point, either Congress gets us out of the conflict, or we elect a new president. One other thought, FWIW... since Bush is the Commander in Chief, he is the head of our troops. Isn't it kind of hard, then, for someone to say that they support the troops, but not Bush? I think most people have mixed feelings about the war, but we need to respect the office of the Presidency--not bow to it, but respect it. |
| #11 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 3/26/2003 6:26:33 PM |
| That's the kind of elitist attitude that our country was against as it moved to have elected officials. If so many ARE brain-dead pawns, we might as well go back to a system where only wealthy aristocrats can appoint members of government. If this war doesn't go well or we questionably invade other countries, Bush will not be reelected. |
| #12 By 10748 (169.3.170.206) at 3/26/2003 6:44:43 PM |
|
#17, Thank you for saying it for me... #16 Sodablue ... comparing Nazis to the Americans in the this instance is utterly ridiculous ... while it proves you can use a search engine, your reasoning is seriously lacking. Goering was no social intellectual ... in fact inserting a quote from him shows the lengths you will go to make your point.
If fact bringing up this type of topic on a tech site should not be allowed. I come here for news and disscussion about techinical issues not arguements for or against the war. |
| #13 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 3/26/2003 6:56:52 PM |
| That's a red herring, macrosslover. The Electoral College in 2000 voted according to their state results with the exception of Barbara Lett-Simmons of D.C., who abstained. Anyone that has taken a high school civics course knows that there is the possibility that a popular vote might lose to the electoral vote, but it's a rarity and the difference between the tallies will be relatively small. The same situation almost happened between Bush Sr. and Clinton in 1992. There have been elections where Electoral College voters have deviated from the popular vote of their states, but those have never influenced the final outcome of any election. In addition, some states require their Electors to vote for their popular candidates, and some states will issue fines or press criminal charges against "faithless Electors." |
| #14 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 3/26/2003 9:14:08 PM |
|
buvg - "I don't think many people believe in blind patriotism, and I don't think that first amendment rights are being trampled on by the administration--are they asking people not to protest?"
Calling people unAmerican, or against America, or traitors, etc. because they are voicing their opinion is blind patriotism. Are you denying these comments have not been made by our politicians? "I think most people have mixed feelings about the war, but we need to respect the office of the Presidency--not bow to it, but respect it. " How exactly do you think people are going to show respect for this Presidency when the party in power showed absolutely none for the last President? The fact that every pro-war rally I have seen footage from has turned into a bash President Clinton rally does nothing to further this idea. An apology would have gone a long way to uniting the nation. Unfortunately this President entered office intent on being a divider rather than a uniter, as he said in his campaign rhetoric. That's another issue outside of this war, but it has much to do with the debate. This post was edited by sodablue on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 at 21:26. |
| #15 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 3/26/2003 9:15:03 PM |
|
Pixel - "#16 Sodablue ... comparing Nazis to the Americans in the this instance is utterly ridiculous ... "
But the quote does accurately describe how this Administration led us into this war. You do not deny that, but rather try to distract from the point made. Why not discuss the points at hand instead of avoiding them? |
| #16 By 7754 (165.247.248.140) at 3/26/2003 11:29:40 PM |
|
Sodablue, I guess I have not heard anyone from the Bush administration calling people unAmerican or traitors. Has Bush himself said these things? I agree that not letting people voice their thoughts is unAmerican itself, but I haven't seen any actions to that end. Voicing your opinion that someone is unAmerican, though, is simply that--an opinion. Both opinions are covered by free speech.
I still think the citizens have to respect the office of the Presidency, regardless of the party status of the President. The partisan antics occur no matter what party occupies the White House. I haven't seen the pro-war rallies turn into anti-Clinton partisan affairs, but that's sad if they have. Maybe almost as unfortunate as some of the comments made at the Wellstone memorial service. I don't agree with the Bush administration's diplomatic handling (or lack thereof) with regards to the U.N., but I think the office should be respected, as it is still the highest office in the land. And despite the diplomatic nightmare it became, I think they have a point in that we live in a different age--one in which we need to be diligent and perhaps even proactive in assuring peace for all. |
| #17 By 7754 (165.247.248.140) at 3/26/2003 11:38:12 PM |
| Macross, the "possibility of faithless electors is always there" with the implication that it could influence an election is like saying "the possibility I can win the lottery is always there." Just because the possibility is there doesn't mean it's going to happen. In fact, it never has happened in the two centuries + our country has been in existence. The conspiracy theories of corruption and blackmail just aren't borne out in reality. |
| #18 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 3/27/2003 2:36:51 AM |
|
bluvg - "I guess I have not heard anyone from the Bush administration calling people unAmerican or traitors. Has Bush himself said these things?"
Has Bush asked his partisans to back off? A real leader, especially one who wants to be a uniter rather than a divider should exert his strength to keep his own party in line. I don't see this happening, do you? "I haven't seen the pro-war rallies turn into anti-Clinton partisan affairs, but that's sad if they have." Yes it is, it's incredibly sad. It's unfortunate that people who support war do not respect the Presidency. "Maybe almost as unfortunate as some of the comments made at the Wellstone memorial service. " Which were not nearly as unfortunate as the cheers over his death coming from local Republicans. I thought the "Thank god the commie is dead" comments were a bit more over the top than anything Rick Kahn said. Wouldn't you agree? "I think the office should be respected" That's great that you think that. I used to think that to, right up until 1993 when the embittered Republicans launched years of fabricated investigations. But I do have to wonder why we're only supposed to respect the President when a Republican is in office, especially one who is so undeserving of my respect. Maybe you could answer that for me. |
| #19 By 7754 (209.98.24.241) at 3/27/2003 8:23:57 AM |
|
sodablue, with all honesty, this kind of thing happens on both sides--Republicans ticked off by Democrats, and Democrats very suspicious and bitter towards Republicans. If you want to trot out all the atrocities mentioned by either side, we're just as bad as they are, and we'll get nowhere. And if you think that several individual comments represent the will and thought of an entire party, that's also part of the reason for the day-in, day-out partisan mess. (And FWIW, I don't know who said "Thank god the commie is dead," nor do I personally know one other person that I've asked who has heard that comment, but I know thousands--perhaps millions--that heard the comments from Rick Kahn and were appalled at how a memorial service turned into a partisan pep rally... granted that Wellstone was always controversial, and ironically it was a somewhat fitting memorial.)
And this is coming from someone from Northern Minnesota, one of the most consistently and staunchly Democrat/DFL parts of the nation. It's not that I'm pro-Republican or anti-Democrat, it's that both sometimes attack each other merely for party's sake and tit-for-tat, and I think it's childish, reactionary, and just plain stupid. Playing the part is every bit as divisive as the perceived devisive tactics of our leaders. |
| #20 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 3/27/2003 11:43:56 AM |
|
bluvg - Interesting.
Back after '94 the problem the GOP had was that their leaders were just downright mean. Gingrich, Lott, Gramm, Delay and so forth were all over the air making the most ridiculous comments. Blaming Democrats for babies being drowned by a mother in South Carolina. In the 2000 and 2002 election cycles the pattern changed. The candidates, like Bush and Coleman, sounded reasonable. They weren't mean, they didn't really say anything of substance either, nothing that they could be called on anyway, just pure shallowness. Meanwhile they coordinated with 3rd party groups outside of their campaign to run incredibly divisive issue ads, such as the ones on television here in Minnesota accusing Wellstone of being a communist. When called on it, they denied it. "It wasn't me... I didn't ask for the ad to be run." Plausible Deniability. (Although in Coleman's case, the Elections oversight committee did fine his campaign because they found he was coordinating with these 3rd parties) When Wellstone responded to the ads he was then labeled an Extremist by the Coleman campaign. He was accused of not working with Republicans to get things done, of course what that really means is he didn't just mindlessly go along with whatever they wanted... i.e. he shockingly voted with his conscience against their agenda. So then after one of the meanest, most divisive campaigns in the history of the state... Wellstone dies in a plane crash. Then this is the kicker. All those "reasonable" Republicans, who were all in favor of the ads attacking Wellstone as a Communist are just absolutely apalled that some people at the Wellstone memorial service don't have nice things to say about Republicans. And the next day... out comes the fake moral outrage, a standard tactic of the Republicans. A concerted campaign over the radio talk shows, television and in the papers. Voice your outrage! Amazing, and you continue to use the tactic here... Claiming that since Bush is saying nothing(no real feat), that we should just all ignore the talking heads surrounding him as they aren't representative of the party. You know the strange thing is, I never even liked Wellstone as a candidate. Nice enough guy, but I didn't agree with his politics. Anyway, nice try, but your tactic is a bit too transparent. How about you try something new, and start talking about the actual issues? |
| #21 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 3/27/2003 12:31:16 PM |
|
linuxhippie - Be careful when agreeing with me. :)
Back when I was in college I was a Republican. I had something of a crisis of conscience at the time. After witnessing Iran Contra, and then seeing the pictures of the Iraqis and Iranians dead in the streets after chemical weapon attacks, I began questioning the Republican stance on issues... that the end justifies the means. I began questioning other things as well, including stances on abortion, homosexuality, etc. After many months of inner reflection, I came to realize something. That the world is not Black and White, but rather shades of Grey. Sounds simple on the surface, but it was pretty gut wrenching at the time. Many people in technical fields can only think in terms of Black and White, and for them the Republican position makes more sense. They don't know if it's right or wrong, they just don't care... they grasp onto it because to realize that the world is shades of grey would be too traumatic to their world view, just like it was for me when I came to realize it. That being said, something to realize is that it's really not Linux I'm against, nor am I really against this war. What I'm against are the zealotry tactics used to promote the two. On the war... I'm somewhat encouraged from what I see, that someone in the Whitehouse has learned from history. We're not involving the Iraqi opposition, because the reality is that if they took over after Hussein was gone, the country would be no different, just the parties would have switched. It's encouraging that the military is being honest with us. The embedded journalists do help to give balance to the news coverage. They've admitted that they miscalculated Iraqi resistance, and that this isn't going to be a short war like it was sold as. It's encouraging that even though there was resistance to this war by the world community, Iraq has no friends. Nobody is shipping them weapons. Thus, every weapon they use is irreplaceable. I am encouraged that Britain is with us. If you want to understand the reasons for war, watch Parliamentary debate on C-Span. You hear compelling logic, something Bush is terrified of because he believes knowledge makes you weak(a very Orwellian attitude). We'll see. I don't like the way this war was entered into. I don't like the failed diplomacy because I suspect it will hurt us long term. I don't like the arrogance. I don't like Bush lying to the citizenry. I don't like Bush using this opportunity to promote profits for his friends. But it might turn out well. One thing I've come to realize is that Islam doesn't fully appreciate western values, but they do understand strength. If we can exhert strength in a manner that abides by western values, I think we can make a tremendous difference in the region. I actually do hold some small belief that this war will result in less terrorism. I know that sounds strange, but we'll see... So I'm playing my only little game here. I see this as a win-win scenario. On the one hand Bush has killed his political career and hopefully that means we won't see any more of his really stupid policy agenda put into action.(The recent Senate votes seem to confirm this) On the other hand, I might get a chance to see the middle east rid of Hussein, and the first real chance of Democracy in the region. |
| #22 By 10748 (169.3.170.206) at 3/27/2003 1:43:47 PM |
|
"But the quote does accurately describe how this Administration led us into this war. You do not deny that, but rather try to distract from the point made. Why not discuss the points at hand instead of avoiding them? "
That is your opinion...if you'd like me to say it, I will spell it out for you... I deny that this war was started in the same manner. Quoting someone who has no insight to the situation gives it no merit. I can quote from a children's book that supports my point.. which means nothing, just as a quote from a power hungry WW I pilot who died 50 years ago means nothing in todays terms... I'd also like to make another comment since I saw no Mod making a point. While I have my opinions I really don't want to read any one elses (That includes those who I happen to agree with) on a technical site. "I PRAY FOR PEACE, PREPARE FOR WAR AND I NEVER WILL FORGET THERE'S NO PRICE TOO HIGH FOR FREEDOM SO BE CAREFUL WHERE YOU TREAD" |
| #23 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 3/27/2003 1:56:41 PM |
|
Hmmm... Soda, we seem to agree on several points, although I'm less critical of Bush overall.
There are the extremists on either side, and they provide great fodder for derisive party debates. Are those debates constructive? I don't really think so. Again, I could come up with a great number of Democrat/DFL and Republican ethical issues. My point was to respect our elected officials, particularly the office of the Presidency--whether it's Clinton or Bush, Reagan or Carter. To some degree, there is something to be said for swallowing our pride for the unity of the nation. I realize that sounds a bit mindless, but there is a need--particularly in times of crisis--to realize a balance between personal freedoms and ideals and responsible citizenship. We can't hold every mistake made against each other as a grudge. I can understand protesting the war, but I don't understand the great majority of the war protestors--most of their arguments are full of specious reasoning. There are plenty of good reasons to oppose the war, but I have yet to hear many of them voiced in protests. Thus, seeing the civil disobedience is a bit baffling for me (using measured violence to stop a war... interesting philosophy...). It's easy to criticize from a distance, when you're not closely involved with the situation, to see an easy way out. I think our government knows things that we don't even want to know. With the discoveries that are being made, I think it's quite obvious now that Hussein was not going to disarm through the U.N., and that force really may be the only way to accomplish that. The only real debate left is whether it was necessary to disarm him in the first place. I don't think that the protests should stop, but I do think that for many, the image of our government institutions has been devalued to the point that they don't need to pay them respect as priviledged citizens of this country. That is a shame. With freedom comes responsibility. |
| #24 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 3/27/2003 2:32:04 PM |
|
Pixel - "Quoting someone who has no insight to the situation gives it no merit."
Ahh, you're mistaken. I have insight into the current situation and I felt that the quotation from Goering was accurate. You do not understand the purpose of quotations, apparently. "While I have my opinions I really don't want to read any one elses" Of course not. Reading opinions might upset your view of the world. |
| #25 By 10748 (169.3.170.206) at 3/27/2003 2:55:24 PM |
|
"Ahh, you're mistaken. I have insight into the current situation and I felt that the quotation from Goering was accurate. You do not understand the purpose of quotations, apparently. "
That is one of the many points we disagree on, I feel the quote has no bearing on the current situation, I'm not saying that all quotes have no purpose, but like statistics can make any point you wish to make. "Of course not. Reading opinions might upset your view of the world. " This quote was purely a put down, listen.... read the URL where you are reading this.... Is this site a politcal one? Or a political forum? NO! It's a technical site and forum, repeat it over and over and maybe you will remember it. Implying that just because I don't want to read your liberal quotations with my technical news because it "might upset my view of the world" is astoundingly idiotic. I come here for news and discussion on technical issues, not your political views. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 169 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:25:41 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
