Why Do They Hate Us?

[Paul Prescod]

Gary Lawrence Murphy wrote:
> 
>...
> 
> Seriously, I wasn't talking about piddling interestes like Microsoft,
> but more of Exxon and Mobil.

The same issue. Exxon and Mobil exist because the US government created
them by busting up standard oil.

>     P> This is factually incorrect. Insofar as they own a single
>     P> square foot of land in the USA, or a single dollar in an
>     P> American bank, the US government could confiscate that land or
>     P> that dollar.
> 
> Can they? On what grounds?  Don't you need to have some charge of
> wrongdoing under US law that a crime has been committed on US soil?

No. If they did business in Cuba, for instance, that would be grounds
for freezing (confiscating?) their assets. Congress can make any law
that doesn't violate the constitution and if the companies do not
comply, Congress can punish them in a civil or criminal manner.

> But ... let's say you'd like them to do as the US Ambassador proposed
> in her meeting with Saddam just days prior to the invasion of Kuwait.
> What if you wanted them to "give" some almost-friendly nation a break?
> Would Exxon agree?

Mu. The question on the table was whether corporations are under the
jurisdiction of the United States. I think the answer is clear. If the
US Ambassador feels strongly enough about whatever issue you are
discussing then he/she should get Congress to propose it as a law and
then the US government will have the ability to enforce the law.

>...
>     P> That's understandable. I'm more concerned about radical
>     P> environmentalists, anarchists and other anti-globalists who
>     P> have no such excuse.
> 
> Not me.  

I'm more concerned *in this context* because as far as I know, these
sort of people are what the discussion was about.

Bill Stoddard:

> It just burns me for 'intellectuals' to frame all the ills of 
> the world (and this conflict in particular) in terms of what 
> the west has done wrong.

Bill Humphries:

> And it bothers me when any constructive criticism of US policy is slapped 
> down with "you don't appreciate what you have here."

Bill Stoddard:

> My beef is that much "constructive"
> criticism of US policy isn't constructive at all because it is not balanced in its
> presentation. The US has done a lot of good in the world.

Bill Humphries:

> Why does a critique of multinationals imply the speaker is not interested 
> in solving problems? What I'm thinking here is that you disagree with 
> their solution. Not the same thing.

You see, we're talking about Western intellectuals, not middle-eastern
fundamentalists.

 Paul Prescod