DailyTech - Lawmaker Claims IBM Aided Holocaust, Google Not Far Off Path

Submit News

IT Lawmaker Claims IBM Aided Holocaust, Google Not Far Off Path
Nirav Sanghani (Blog) - March 21, 2008 5:18 PM

E-mail

del.icio.us

166 comment(s) - last by Smiting Eye.. on Apr 10 at 8:32 PM

IBM's "Hollerith" machine found in museum in Germany. It is similar to the ones said to be used by Nazi officials during the Holocaust. (Source: The Sydney Morning Herald)

Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) claims Google and other IT companies block politically sensitive information in "repressive" countries, relates it to IBM aiding the Holocaust

Dot-coms mix with politics just about as well as oil does with water. American internet companies were placed under the microscope this week for involvement with countries that do not hold up human rights standards.

During what started as a relatively routine hearing on Museum of the History of Polish Jews, House Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) took the opportunity to berate IBM for its involvement in selling and programming equipment to Nazi officials leading up to and during World War II.

"Did you ever wonder why the Gestapo always had all of those very well-laid-out prints of where the Jews lived, because IBM made it happen," he said. He continued to discuss the finer points of his bill, the Global Online Freedom Act.

Smith made it a point to limit and impose standards on corporations doing business in countries like China and Saudi Arabia. Instead of IBM, he alleges Google, Yahoo, Cisco Systems and Microsoft release personally identifiable information about internet users to repressive governments.

“History shows that U.S. companies have at times in the past provided the technology to crush human rights. For instance, IBM were good soldiers with the Gestapo. Now, U.S. companies, that originally thought they were helping bring freedom have found themselves — wittingly or unwittingly — part of a regime,” Smith said during committee consideration of his legislation.

The bill authoring started with the arrest of Shi Toa, a Chinese journalist arrested after authorities in China acquired personally identifiable information with the supposed help of Yahoo. Smith cites and emphasizes these incidents to build ammunition to propel his Global Online Freedom Act.

“Shi Tao is unjustly serving time in prison as a result of information Yahoo provided to Chinese authorities. Moreover, Yahoo officials who came before my committee — during a hearing I chaired — in sworn testimony said they knew nothing ‘about the nature of the investigation’ into Shi Tao. The Global Online Freedom Act will prohibit U.S. technology companies from cooperating with repressive regimes so that others do not meet Shi Tao’s fate,” claimed Smith.

Smith charges that these corporations not only aided “repressive” regimes, but did all they could to cover up business dealings in order to continue their business in these countries. He demands that Congress pass the act so that American IT companies cannot commit these “shameful” acts.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Par for the course

By themadmilkman on 3/21/2008 5:59:55 PM , Rating: 4

Just another 2-bit politician trying to get camera time so he can get reelected.

RE: Par for the course

By jadeskye on 3/21/08, Rating: -1

RE: Par for the course

By eye smite on 3/21/08, Rating: -1

RE: Par for the course

By bupkus on 3/21/08, Rating: 0

RE: Par for the course

By rudy on 3/22/2008 3:42:43 AM , Rating: 2

No clearly it came from IBM

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By paydirt on 3/24/2008 9:26:43 AM , Rating: 3

Do corporations have freedoms too? Repressing the freedoms of corporations to answer to governments (including the U.S.) is still a repression of freedom--just the freedom of corporations instead of the freedom of individuals.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By Ryanman on 3/22/2008 2:33:48 PM , Rating: 5

no he's not saying that. Don't be an idiot.
He's saying that in HITLER'S mind there were justifications. Any reasonable human knows that killing 6 million people is beyond all rationalization.
You're taking advantage of an off-color comment to get uprated and I think it's kind of gross.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By Duwelon on 3/21/2008 6:42:14 PM , Rating: 1

You can't agree that someone is a "bad man" and then point out that he may have been justified. He was either bad (and did things that were unjustified or unjustifiable) or he was good in killing all the jews.

In other words, it sounds like your just trying to make a point in defense of Hitler while at the same trying to agree he was bad.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By Alexstarfire on 3/21/08, Rating: 0

RE: Par for the course

By Duwelon on 3/21/2008 10:00:00 PM , Rating: 1

Millions of people all across Europe lay dead. Fatherless, Motherless, Childless. All their property up in a flash of a german Bomb. Other countries had their economies ruined and their citizens lives in shambles. Their currency devalued as their GDP dropped like a rock. Their lives turned to hell as the depression of War must have sunk in.

But hey, Germany did gain some things out of all that for awhile, with them inflicting all the above on the rest of europe.

You have a gift for looking on the bright side.

I've just said a prayer for you.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By eye smite on 3/21/08, Rating: -1

RE: Par for the course

By sh3rules on 3/21/2008 10:34:05 PM , Rating: 3

It’s interesting that we survived the Red Scare without becoming a police state (in the sense of 1984). We’re going in that direction again, but we’re not there yet.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By eye smite on 3/22/08, Rating: -1

By eye smite on 3/22/2008 10:26:11 AM , Rating: -1

I think you're all totally missing the point. My original question was have any of you stopped to consider the motivations behind Hitler becoming what he did. I never stated it was justified in fact I stated the obvious that it was not. In order to learn from history though and not repeat the same mistakes that are being repeated today you have to look at all aspects of that conflict to see just what happened. Stalin was as bad a man as Hitler was, and oh wow, they both had similar childhoods. That should be a clue right there, but that again is not the only reason for what happened, it just set the stage. I love the fact that someone keeps rating me down through their own ignorance and isn't willing to research this themselves. Lets just all be emotional, jump to conclusions and argue like basic primates shall we? As far as the article your perception issues are astounding. That Congressman is not blaming IBM for the holocaust. He is saying their otherwise seemingly innocent actions in the name of turning a dollar aided the nazi effort. I'm really rather certain that if the execs at IBM realized how their equipment was being used, they wouldn't have sold it to the Nazi's as companies still had morals and ethics to some degree during that time. What that Congressman is saying is that Yahoo cooperating with a country that is known to supress and restrict human rights is bound to result in needless persecution of individuals like the man in his rant that he cited. So, in conclusion looking back at the posts, we can see you all jump to totally wrong conclusions based on emotion with no logic involved what so ever. That makes you a base and vile animal, as they react or act on instinct/emotion, not logic. Enjoy being The Human Animal and search that on google and read up on why you act like animals instead of humans. I have cited that book a number of times and predictably none of you animals have taken the time to read up on that either. Please keep rating me down though, it certainly proves my point.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By psaus on 3/22/08, Rating: -1

RE: Par for the course

By Ryanman on 3/22/2008 2:37:39 PM , Rating: 2

by saying you'll rate him up, you will get rated down.

Hitler did the same things FDR did except he did it with bigotry, hate, and scapegoating. Nobody here is denying that he's an evil man and stands to be one of the worst in humankind's history. Stop acting like the posts above me are trying to put Hitler on a pedestal.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By eye smite on 3/22/08, Rating: 0

RE: Par for the course

By TerranMagistrate on 3/21/2008 10:36:58 PM , Rating: 2

He didn't meaning "Jews" once in his reply. It's clear he meant human genocide. It's not wise to go off assuming in an attempt to support your warped personal views...

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By GodisanAtheist on 3/22/2008 12:14:46 AM , Rating: 1

Try 30 Million Russians. For a sense of scale for the "ostfront", more Russians died during the 900 day siege of Leningrad than all other allied loses combined.

Hitler also killed 12 million in the holocaust, of which 6 million were Jews (the rest being mentally disabled, gypsies, political prisoners, homosexuals etc...). Jews constituted the largest denomination in death camps, which is why they get so much attention.

Jews have "marketed" the holocaust almost too expertly, however, so as when they legitimately defend their country from aggression and blow up civilians, they get intense amounts of political flak.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By BZDTemp on 3/22/08, Rating: -1

RE: Par for the course

By straycat74 on 3/22/2008 10:16:07 AM , Rating: 1

You probably also believe that people don't have a right to defend their home with a firearm. Or believe that homeowners should be sued when a home invader gets injured in a robbery attempt. Very 'progressive'.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By wordsworm on 3/22/08, Rating: 0

RE: Par for the course

By eye smite on 3/22/2008 11:28:34 AM , Rating: 2

I think the website " Jews For The Preservation of Firearms" would probably disagree with you......

http://www.jpfo.org/

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By wordsworm on 3/22/2008 12:34:56 PM , Rating: 1

Munitions then... allow firearms to exist, but prohibit munitions. That's a good compromise, right? Give them the guns, but no bullets!

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By eye smite on 3/22/2008 1:33:16 PM , Rating: 2

That is the lamest response you might have given I think. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. They don't need guns to do it either, they can use knives, bats or the like, and especially cars when they get drunk. Wait.......they don't even have to be drunk to kill someone with a car, just very irresposnible. Shall we outlaw cars since more people are killed by them every year than by guns. Shall we outlaw alcohol because drunk drivers kill more people every year than smoking does. One freedom goes, another has to go as compensation. In other words, I'll give up my guns just as soon as they outlaw alcohol again. Fair enough?

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By psaus on 3/22/2008 2:02:04 PM , Rating: 2

"THE" Prohibition, and gun-prohibition? Again eye smite, props to you... not a more apt comparison.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By wordsworm on 3/22/08, Rating: -1

RE: Par for the course

By eye smite on 3/22/2008 11:14:48 PM , Rating: 2

I'm sorry you haven't taken the time to learn about guns. I got one put in my hands when I was 7 yrs old. I'm 38 now and have been shooting ever since. Wow, does that mean I should have killed someone by now? Penalizing everyone for the actions of a few is the most assenine thing you could do. Taking away a freedom established when this continent became a country negates every other freedom we enjoy. I repeat myself again, guns do not kill people. I have never seen a pistol jump up off a table and shoot someone all by itself. People kill people. The Korean guy.....that's a failing of his family and friends that knew he wasn't taking his medication to keep him from getting wiggy, and how many people could he have killed with a car during class change at the campus on the sidewalks? BTW, saying guns don't kill people, people kill people isn't the worlds dumbest quote. It just happens to be the truth. One day you might gleen some insight into how things really work, and I'll still own guns and be shooting them on the land my family owns.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By wordsworm on 3/23/08, Rating: 0

RE: Par for the course

By eye smite on 3/24/2008 10:35:50 AM , Rating: 3

and this is where your logic is flawed. The key words in your second sentence are can kill. Just as many people can be killed by cars and alot faster as well. Have a look....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvjHEgo8I10

So again, you're making comments based on the actions of a few, not the more than 50% of Americans that do own guns. If everyone with a gun killed at least one person in there lifetime here in this country, wouldn't our population be more like 80 million or less instead of 300+ million?

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By wordsworm on 3/26/2008 10:27:14 AM , Rating: 2

Cars are being engineered to become safer every day. When's the last time you've heard about a gun being designed to be nonlethal? At least the attempt is being made.

What makes my logic sound is that a world without guns would see far fewer deaths by guns. True, wars can be fought with swords, bows and arrows, knives. However, going postal with a knife will have a significantly different outcome than going postal with a semi-automatic.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By seraphim1982 on 3/24/2008 10:24:16 AM , Rating: 2

Well put....

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By MikieTImT on 3/22/2008 12:42:20 PM , Rating: 3

I really hope you're kidding. If a person stops and thinks logically for a second, the only thing that firearm bans accomplish are making sure that those who have them have no respect for the law, such as criminals or politicians. I'd have a problem with criminals being better armed than me, because my dad was a policeman, and, as he stated, almost without exception, by the time a cop comes around, the crime has already been committed. By then, it's too late. He and nearly all of his policeman friends are strong proponents of firearm ownership.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By jlips6 on 3/22/2008 2:02:50 PM , Rating: 3

lol, read a lot of terry pratchet MikieTImT? Your point is perfect. I would rate you up to a 6 if I could. Criminals don't follow the law, duh. It is a requirement for the job I understand. So why would they follow a law requiring them to get rid of their guns? Another problem: we are trying to take the guns away from people who, well... have guns. Inherently problematic. It makes me laugh in the face of all the people who actually want to ban guns. Oh, and I'm a democrat, and a liberal, but the gun control law is idiocy. Maybe more control in tracking who has guns, but actually trying to take them away? That's why I wanted John Edwards for president. To bad he had no chance of winning.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By wordsworm on 3/22/08, Rating: -1

RE: Par for the course

By eye smite on 3/22/2008 11:31:22 PM , Rating: 1

Logically that makes perfect sense. Lets talk some more logic though. Logically speaking if American soliders hadn't had guns when they went over there to help your country, there would be no S.Korea. Logically speaking if the US had not supplied S.Korea with arms, they wouldn't have even been able to defend themselves during that conflict. Logically speaking right now there should be no N.Korea/S.Korea, it should just be a communist Korea completely. Now, I'm glad you get to enjoy all your freedoms, and I hope that continues for a very long time. However, the day you forget how those freedoms were gained, kept and preserved for so long, you're giving up those freedoms. If by your statitistics we lose 43k+ people in gun related incidents every year vs 300 million people in this country.........that is an incredibly small number compared to how many people own guns in this country. Lets say 50% of Americans own guns, that's 150 million people. Has there ever been that many people in S. Korea? Also, smuggling guns wouldn't be that difficult considering we have a virtually open border to Mexico and Canada. There is no system that is perfect, and I don't think there ever will be. I can almost guarantee you though there would be another civil war in this country if they tried to take all our guns away. Crime in certain states has actually gone down as a result of licenses giving people the right to carry a concealed handgun. Thieves and murderers don't know who has a gun and who doesn't and generally don't take the risk.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By BikeDude on 3/23/08, Rating: 0

By BikeDude on 3/23/2008 7:06:49 PM , Rating: 0

quote:
when they went over there to help your country

They helped Korea? Did the US also "help" Vietnam? Sheesh, the Vietnamese women still give birth to children with serious birth defects thanks to "helpful" chemicals like Agent Orange. Were those wars really worth it?

Communist Korea or only communist North-Korea -- who really cares? Maybe if the US had stayed the hell out, they would've introduced democracy for the entire country by now, and not just the south.

As for gun related incidents in the US, it should be pretty clear that their civilization is heading a certain place in a handbasket. Banning guns won't help one iota. Maybe they could get some clues from the Canadians, but it is doubtful. They have too many States and one federal law to govern them all isn't working for them I think.

Back to the topic at hand: A law that bans Yahoo & al from delivering information to rogue states will be a welcome one. Maybe then it will be harder for the American government to keep track of individuals in breach of the DMCA.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By wordsworm on 3/26/2008 10:40:34 AM , Rating: 2

Do you think that America brought freedom to S. Korea? S. Korea only won freedom in 1987. Only in the last 5 was it even legal to talk about communism or Kim Jong Il. The dictatorships that sprang in S. Korea were absolutely brutal. Korea still doesn't have a strong sense of its own identity between the occupation of Japan, the US, and communism. I'm speaking as someone who has become slightly informed over the 2 years I've lived here. Korea isn't my country. I just work here. My country is the shadow to yours known as Canada. Except for Quebec, you wouldn't be able to tell where the US ended and Canada began. In any case, that's not important to the discussion except to say that I'm not a patriotic Korean.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By jlips6 on 3/23/2008 11:15:05 AM , Rating: 2

I think you are missing the point. You're statistics and things make sense, but please remember, when you say: if we melted down all the guns... that would mean that we need to get all the guns first, and therein lies the problem. see Miki TImT above or my post for details.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By Ryanman on 3/23/2008 2:47:34 AM , Rating: 2

that was pretty gay. I won't lie to you.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By BZDTemp on 3/24/2008 9:55:33 AM , Rating: 2

I am all for defense but I don't see how that plays in here. Care to explain?

The massive amount of civilians killed by the allies in WWII was not defense it was revenge or to use different words simply unjustified slaughtering of innocent humans. Even if you say the civilians in Germany and Japan was somehow part of their war machines surely you cannot say so about the children!

And as for Israel how does defense come in to play? How can you even consider talking about them as defenders since they are occupying a neighboring country. Just look at the settlements where the Israeli take the best land and import Jews from Russia to live on it.

May I suggest that you start getting your news from other sources than Fox. Perhaps the BBC would bring you some perspective.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By callmeroy on 3/24/08, Rating: 0

By callmeroy on 3/24/2008 11:32:03 AM , Rating: 0

I'm reading this thread and these topics have been debated over and over again for 60+ years...

Of course the jews are most talked about in WWII, and yes more Russian's died than any other single "race/ethnicity" - but how stupid are you people -- no shit the Jews are most talked about because they were exterminated and treated lower than whale shit. While for the soliders it was no picnic, they were soliders and died in war - they weren't baked in ovens, they weren't tortured, like the Jews were.

Now that said...

On the those de-sensitized about the "Jews" and how they "use that as an excuse" -- I kind of agree with you, but the other half of me says well there is a larger thing that the Jew topic....how about the , dare I say , the racial thing -- you know about black v white thing in this country (US)?

If the jews been using the holocaust as an excuse for whatever for 60-70 years, many blacks still play the slavery card in the US for an excuse too and that's been going on since what -- the 1800's when slavery was "officially" banned.

Mind you I think both are insane and ridiculous excuses.

But such is life, the problem we have is we don't know how to move on, everyone holds onto grudges and shit...think of how much more we could do if people would move on....bygon's be bygons and all that happy horse shit.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By DASQ on 3/21/08, Rating: 0

RE: Par for the course

By Duwelon on 3/21/2008 10:52:03 PM , Rating: 2

What are some of the good things Hitler did?

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By James Holden on 3/21/2008 10:56:37 PM , Rating: 2

The American and Russian space programs

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By Duwelon on 3/21/2008 11:09:55 PM , Rating: 2

Uhhh.... what?

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By AntiV6 on 3/21/2008 11:59:31 PM , Rating: 2

Brought Germany and America out of a depression. Made the Americans push for the first Nuke, gave us extremely knowledgeable people like Einstein. Allied soldiers found many extremely advanced designs like the jet engine. Helped us accidentally discovered the Microwave. Hitler was also nominated for a freakin Nobel Peace Prize as well.

But yea, I still hope Hitler is getting a pineapple shoved up his keaster like in Little Nicky.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By seamonkey79 on 3/22/2008 1:30:54 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
The American and Russian space programs

quote:
Uhhh.... what?

Much of the US' rocketry was developed from and BY German scientists smuggled out of the country so as to keep them from the war crime trials that took place after the war. The guy who 'invented' the V-1 and V-2 bomb/missile/rockets that went into Britain during the Battle of Britain designed the Saturn V rocket that took man to the moon.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By AraH on 3/22/2008 6:44:32 AM , Rating: 2

pwned

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By eye smite on 3/22/2008 5:39:55 PM , Rating: 3

Here you got watch this one then look up the scientists responsible for the Saturn V rocket launched in 1969.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifTqqxrxuGU

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By Tsuwamono on 3/23/08, Rating: 0

RE: Par for the course

By SiN on 3/22/2008 2:31:23 AM , Rating: 2

Sorry to say it but he, more specificly the Nazi, regeim put beleif and money into the reaserch for war, and they came up with an awful number of inventions/advancements.

Ultimatly there has not ever been or since been that level of speed in technology advancement. I could almost go on to suggest we would be 50 years behind technologicly if it were not for such atrocaties.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By straycat74 on 3/22/2008 10:21:01 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
To everyone who met him, John Wayne Gacy seemed a likable and affable man. He was widely respected in the community, charming and easy to get along with. He was a good Catholic and sharp businessman who, when not running his construction company was active in the Jaycees and was also a Democratic Party precinct captain, when he had his photo taken with then First Lady, Rosalynn Carter. He also spent much of his free time hosting elaborate street parties for his friends and neighbors, serving in community groups and entertaining children as "Pogo the Clown". He was a generous, hard working, friendly, devoted family man, everyone knew that

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By boogle on 3/22/2008 5:16:25 AM , Rating: 5

quote:
I've just said a prayer for you.

Does that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?

Did you say that to make yourself look like a 'better person'? Or because you don't believe prayers work?

I just don't understand why you would say that, because if prayers work there's no need to mention you did that short of stroking your own ego.

And how is saying a prayer going to help anyway? God (or whoever you worship) is going to come down and reprogram his brain? Or you're trying to get him into heaven? If you're saying that your little prayer can influence an omnipotent being to change someone else (or their own plans of sending that person to hell) just because you said so - well that's supremely arrogant isn't it?

Now wait for the down-modding because I questioned religion and prayer!

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By Duwelon on 3/22/08, Rating: 0

By Duwelon on 3/22/2008 9:57:15 AM , Rating: 0

"Does that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?"

Yes, it does. It feels good to care about the well being of another. Yeah, i'm crazy like that.

"Did you say that to make yourself look like a 'better person'? Or because you don't believe prayers work?"

Not to make myself look like a better person. I really think he/she is misguided and it's a way to point that out.

"I just don't understand why you would say that, because if prayers work there's no need to mention you did that short of stroking your own ego."

As you can tell this isn't exactly a Christian utopia anyway. If we just ignore all bad things without speaking out, we're ignoring one of the things God gave us to set others on the right path. It's obvious your not used to seeing that but there is a bigger world than just the typical Atheist ridden forums where all things unprovable with our own 5 senses are despised.

"And how is saying a prayer going to help anyway? God (or whoever you worship) is going to come down and reprogram his brain? Or you're trying to get him into heaven? If you're saying that your little prayer can influence an omnipotent being to change someone else (or their own plans of sending that person to hell) just because you said so - well that's supremely arrogant isn't it?"

How in the world did you end up thinking people pray for others that God would send them to hell?

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By eye smite on 3/22/2008 1:44:12 PM , Rating: 2

What I'm terribly curiuos about is how you think I'm so misguided? If you consider researching the reasons behind Hitlers actions to learn the full historical lesson so that it's not repeated again, or committed in my own life, which one of us is truly misguided? Or perhaps you're seeing what you want to see in my post and not really reading it for what it is? I used to have a bumpersticker on my car that said " Jesus protect me from your followers". Now believing in Christ and God, you might think I'm a hypocrit or confused, maybe even naive. I'll tell you exactly why I had that bumpersticker on a car I no longer own. Have you ever seen Christians pull out of the church parking lot on Sunday? How they cut you off, tailgate you, change lanes cutting you off, and generally not pay attention to what they're doing because they just got absolution at the chapel? I NEED protection from those people so they don't get me killed. It's all in your perception isn't it. It's just like the Roman Empire were not conquerers. They were Real Estate developers.....digest that one. lol

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By Smiting Eye on 4/10/2008 8:30:54 PM , Rating: 2

Some people just have astronomical delusions

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By psaus on 3/22/2008 1:57:20 PM , Rating: 2

I guess I must be too new to Rate comments, so I will post instead.

Duwelon, you completely proved Boogle's "you're supremely ignorant" suspicion with this response. Well done.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By boogle on 3/22/2008 6:29:26 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Not to make myself look like a better person. I really think he/she is misguided and it's a way to point that out.

That's fine, next time try saying 'I respect your opinion and right to freedom of speech. I however, disagree with you, but hope you give me the same courtesy and respect my opinion and freedom of speech'.

Saying you'll pray for someone is offensive to many non-christians, and even some other christians for that matter.

Would you like it if I said 'You are so wrong that I fear for your soul, I prayed to almighty deity for you' to something you said?

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By eye smite on 3/22/2008 6:35:57 PM , Rating: 3

Nope, nope.....the way I read it, he was trying to get a rise out of me by saying he'd pray for me. Let him pray for me, I could use the help. Ultimately he's saying he doesn't understand any of the points I'm raising and that he suffers from some extreme perception issues. That's typical of most people in the good ole USA, and they let these people vote. That's what scares the hell out of me.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By Duwelon on 3/22/2008 7:34:43 PM , Rating: 2

Just because something is offensive, doesn't mean it's not cruel to keep it from them. If I saw someone about to bungie jump knowing that they didn't prepare correctly, knowing they would be offended at my correcting them, it would still be cruel not to inform them.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By eye smite on 3/22/2008 11:50:48 PM , Rating: 3

Duwelon, you didn't offend me in the slightest. Your statement though was made from ignorance and prejudice. You didn't understand the question I posed and you thought I was misguided for asking it. You instantly jumped to the conclusion that I was defending Hitler or bashing the jews and christianity, and I'm sorry, that's not what I was doing at all. I asked the question I did because Hitler wasn't the only one to blame for all that happpened. This happens to be the problem with most people for......oh say the last 3k yrs or so. It doesn't matter if your Jewish, Christian, Agnostic, Atheist, Bhuddist, Orhodox or Wiccan. If you don't learn the lessons of your past, the lessons of history, you are doomed to repeat it, because you'll never see it coming. Herein lies the lesson. The whole article was not about labeling IBM as a Nazi supporter. It was exemplifying their otherwise seemingly normal business practices as irresponsible. If companies are just about making money and not taking the time to ask why, they in turn get the stick rammed up the backside and become a pudding pop. There is a moral and ethical responsibility that companies have when conducting business. Its very apparent these days that isn't being followed and capitolism is clearly winning over democracy. My parents worked most of their lives at one job. The old man spent 41 yrs at his job, got a nice pension out of it. The old lady, she spent 21 yrs at the same company, got a decent pension herself. They got those nice jobs and were able to stay there because companies had some symbolance of ethics and values, something I will never see from any company in my lifetime. When did it all change and how far do we let it go before we say enough is enough? To answer that question, you better know your history and realize how close we are to being back in the same ruts our ancestors in this country already went through. Nuff said.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By clovell on 3/24/2008 1:29:19 PM , Rating: 2

Well said.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By adam92682 on 3/21/2008 11:47:44 PM , Rating: 2

World War 2 also got the US out of its depression.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By tdawg on 3/21/2008 7:35:45 PM , Rating: 2

I'm curious to hear what "motivations" drove Hitler to do what he did. You can't say something like that and not answer your own question. Please, tell us what you feel his "motivations" were?

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By eye smite on 3/21/08, Rating: -1

By eye smite on 3/21/2008 9:41:28 PM , Rating: -1

First of all, let me just say to you that have commented and rated me down, your typical emotional and prejudiced response does not surprise me in the least. For what I'm guessing to be adults on this forum, your responses are that of emotional children. Have you ever known in your studies a serial killer or rapist to just snap and become evil as you perceive it overnight? Or did you take the time to study why their behavior shifted to one totally unacceptable to that of society around them? I would take the time to explain it to you, but after the responses you've posted here acting like children and rating me down with your prejudice signs clearly in hand, I can see you're not worthy of an explanation,. In fact, you lazy minded parrots need to hurt what little brain you have between those dumbo ears and read up on it for yourselves. I'm sure that you won't though because it's too hard to research and much easier to parrot what you've heard and not really know the truth. Trust me when I say, there were many reasons behind Hitler becoming what he was, and not one of those reasons justifies anything he did in the least. You can be rest assured though, he was not the only one to blame, and the word evil and inhumane cannot be laid at his feet or his administrations feet alone. Again, you'll just have to read won't you. I got a 20 dollar bill that says you all rate me down and stay stupid though. Nuff said.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By TerranMagistrate on 3/21/2008 10:30:02 PM , Rating: 2

You fail to elaborate on a arguably provocative statement like:

quote:
...have you ever stopped to consider where his motivation came from to do the things he did?

And then you imply that the responses are childish. That's pure irony.

Why would anyone need to take into consideration the motivation behind the Holocaust? Is there perhaps an important enough reason for it to have happened that we may be unaware of? That's what you seem to insinuate.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By rippleyaliens on 3/22/2008 1:38:17 AM , Rating: 2

Motivation? EASY, HE was trying to Win a WAR. The Killing of your Enemy Period.. IF the Jews were his perceived Enemy, then so be it.
The US in 1945, killed over 100,000 Instantly, and well over 100,000 over 20 years, with just 2 bombs. Was it morally wrong, yes. BUT The killing of the Enemy is WAR!!..
Seriously.. Russians did the same thing.. In War, Death is a guarantee. Killing your Enemies is only way to Win a war. IF it came to killing just to not feed them SAME THING..
AND -- The US has preformed its own holocaust.. It just chooses to forget it. Over 12 million Slaves lost JUST in Transport to the US, and over 300 years of Forced Slavery.. well Holocaust describes that to me.And that wasnt Warfare... So Nazi Warfare = WARFARE...

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By straycat74 on 3/22/2008 10:29:14 AM , Rating: 3

I forgot the US invented slavery thousands of years ago. Then single-handedly created slave factories in Africa, brainwashed Africans to round up other Africans, and sell them to the rest of the world. My textbooks were used, so that page must have been missing.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By eye smite on 3/22/08, Rating: -1

RE: Par for the course

By straycat74 on 3/22/2008 12:24:35 PM , Rating: 4

Maybe you should read what I wrote again S-L-O-W-L-Y. Here is a hint. The US wasn't around thousands of years ago.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By eye smite on 3/22/2008 12:31:17 PM , Rating: 1

Perhaps you should read a bit more yourself as the slavery you described wasn't around thousands of years ago either.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By psaus on 3/22/2008 2:07:35 PM , Rating: 2

reword from Thousands to multiple hundreds of years (300+), and I think the comment is correct. He was going for affect (funny or otherwise) and went so far it made it too incorrect.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By eye smite on 3/22/2008 11:22:39 AM , Rating: 1

Let me copy and paste part of an article for the 1590s up to the civil war in N. America for you.

Finally, it is also important to keep in mind that yet a third group of people--in this case Africans--played an active role in the European invasion (or colonization) of the western hemisphere. From the very beginning, Europeans' attempts to establish colonies in the western hemisphere foundered on the lack of laborers to do the hard work of colony-building. For the most part, Europeans were not especially picky about who did the work, as long as it wasn't them. The Spanish, for example, enslaved the Indians in regions under their control. The English struck upon the idea of indentured servitude to solve the labor problem in Virginia. Virtually all the European powers eventually turned to African slavery to provide labor on their islands in the West Indies. Slavery was eventually transferred to other colonies in both South and North America.

Here's the link, read on it.
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/learn/features/timeline/colo...

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By jlips6 on 3/22/2008 1:56:14 PM , Rating: 2

saving private Rian anyone? war is about killing the enemy true. But Hitler in killing the jews, the homosexuals, the gypsies, the disabled, was not trying to win the war. He was trying to create an idealistic society of Arians. It would've been much better for him military wise to try and recruit them, but he couldn't have done that anyway because of political views of the people. He blamed the jews for all the problems in Germany, and that's how he came to power. I think he got caught up in his own propaganda and really did believe the jews were responsible for everything. Either that or he believed in his views before he spread his propaganda. Either way his ultimate goal was to cleanse society and make it perfect. The holocaust was not war. It was engineered hell designed to kill those who he deemed unworthy. seisatsu yodatsu. What he failed to realize is that it is not up to us to decide that unless it is life or death.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By seraphim1982 on 3/24/2008 11:07:06 AM , Rating: 2

Firstly, props to Eyesmite and Wordsworm! If I could bump you I would. Props to Jlips6 as well.

Firstly, I don't wanna sound inconsiderate, but Jews and the Holocaust, aren't the only people to die in WW2. Almost as many Chinese and Russians died horrible deaths as well, yet the Holocaust has much more exposure. Just pointing it out. Jumping BACK on topic, this congressman is trying to use this as a ploy to get more popular. About IBM selling that stuff to the Germans, its not IBM who decides to sell it, its probably some dude in the IBM office at the time. Also, if you really do want to rant more about IBM and their business practices during the, then you should add a LONG list of countries and companies to that list, cause they did the exact same thing. WAR can be EXTREMELY profitable.
PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE, NOT the KILLING EQUIPMENT.

I also remember some noob, talking about Pearl Harbour and how it was unprovoked. Actually, when a country that claims neutrality, yet provides another country's enemy with supplies and weapons, the neutral country really isn't neutral. Also, the Americans knew in advance of the attack, THERE were NUMEROUS clues and indications that an attack was coming They let it happen, it was the catalyst to unify the people in mass support. The Japanese did a pre-emptive strike on the Americans, so it would take them out of the picture a while, so they could amas resources and territories in the Pacific first. But Credit, the Americans and their industrial power of the time. The Japanese did not expect the Americans to come back with such a rapid striking blow.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By fic2 on 3/22/2008 2:02:10 PM , Rating: 2

Hitler started the war and got Italy and Japan to join him. Japan attacked the U.S. If none of that happened the U.S. wouldn't have killed anyone.

My opinion is that if you get attacked you can do what ever the hell you want to defend yourself. Pretty much like if someone invades your home. I would have no problem killing someone that invaded my home.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By tigen on 3/24/2008 7:36:42 PM , Rating: 2

That's pretty naive. The US was already involved in Asia. There was tension with Japan before Pearl Harbor. It's not like Japan just went and did that for no reason at all.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By eye smite on 3/22/08, Rating: 0

By eye smite on 3/22/2008 10:39:51 AM , Rating: 0

No, what I'm saying is you're too lazy to research and find the reasons for yourselves. Yes, in order to learn the lessons of history correctly and not repeat the same mistakes you have to look. Yes, your responses are childish as you prejudice yourself against me from the biggest perception issues historically in our times. I bet you don't even know the reasoning behind using the first A-bombs. It wasn't just to end the war. It was invade Japan and sacrifice an estimated 1 million more American soldiers, an estimate that was grossly undervaluated when they did go into Japan after looking at how they were entrenched or, kill a couple hundred thousand to end the war. So if your the CIC of the country and have to sacrifice at least another 1 million American lives or 200k Japanese lives to end a war, which decision are you going to make. You can bet he wasn't looking at the far reaching impacts of that decision either. Again, all anyone can see is the atrocity of us using a nuclear weapon, not the American lives kept from conflict by such an action. You think Truman was drinking beer and dancing to celebrate just cause he could blow up an entire city? My God you people are just totally delusional about history.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By Duwelon on 3/21/2008 11:07:13 PM , Rating: 2

What makes you so angry about people ragging on Hitler? Obviously, he wasn't the only person responsible but he was a very instrumental part of Nazism to say the least.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By eye smite on 3/22/2008 11:15:48 AM , Rating: 1

Let me correct your perception issue. I'm not angry about anyone ragging on Hitler, and I've stated more than once he committed heinous acts, perhaps the worst in the last 200 yrs. My question which so far everyone has failed to answer and really think about is............what was the motivation that drove him to such actions. You don't learn anything from history at all if you can't look at all of it and really answer the questions. That's why history is repeating itself right now in our own country because maybe a couple of you learned the critical lessons and the rest of you fail. You think high school history is going to answer these questions? Pure delusion.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By Duwelon on 3/22/2008 8:00:53 PM , Rating: 2

You said you'd correct my/our perceptions and agree Hitler was bad, but you're not answering your own question.

Why don't you answer your own question, and tell US why you believe Hitler/Germany in general killed all those people and invaded all those countries?

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By eye smite on 3/23/2008 12:01:55 AM , Rating: 2

First off, I didn't ask the question so that I could answer it. Farther down this thread I did answer the question, all you have to do is read. That's the other problem though, getting you to read. That was why I asked the question. Because I knew most of you would rate me down and bash me from ignorant prejudice and perception issues instead of asking yourself " why did hitler do those things?"

It's obvious though you're all willing to more readily accept the explanation that he was evil and insane and drop it at that. I can assure you in the 1920s and 1930s Hitler was far from being evil or insane and it wasn't til towards the end of WW2 that his quack doctor had him on so many drugs that he was insane. So then you have to ask the question " what would provoke a man like that to be so enraged at a people he would do this?", and yet you don't ask that question. So why aren't you asking that question? More importantly, why aren't you digging through websites to find those answers yourself?

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By General Disturbance on 3/22/2008 12:28:28 AM , Rating: 1

that rocked, smite!

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By Rob Pintwala on 3/22/2008 1:28:55 AM , Rating: 2

I'm baffled by your argument. Absolutely baffled. Oh, and please stop calling us children; you only further show your own level of maturity.

It's not some well-kept secret as to why Hitler made the Jewish people into a scapegoat for Germany's problems. You seem to imply that we are completely ignorant of facts that are taught in a grade 10 world history class. But, I'm forgetting, I'm a child, right? You made a ridiculous statement and then failed to support it.

Oh, and I haven't seen a post so far that has said that Hitler was alone to blame. No one even implied it thus far. So, what are you going on about?

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By eye smite on 3/22/2008 10:54:40 AM , Rating: 1

Oh yes, I've posted it yesterday in fact. You're just too lazy to read up. I'll give you another clue behind hitlers motivations. You have to study all the way back to the end of World War One, and no, your 10th grade history books did not cover these events correctly because they were approved by a faculty of people that only approved the popular versions of history that don't cover some of the more relevant reasoning behind Hitlers motivation to commmit such heinous acts. If you knew the real reasoning back to 1930 and before, you'd see the same kind of history being repeated right now, today, in the good ole USA.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By Rob Pintwala on 3/23/2008 1:41:53 AM , Rating: 2

Umm.. You're VERY presumptuous, aren't you? No, my history books covered it. In fact, we discussed it in depth in class. I don't know which country you were educated in, but where I'm from it's common knowledge that antisemitism had a long-standing history in Europe (not just the Germanic region). Hell, even my parents were educated to this extent. There's not some big cabal of evil scholars secretly trying to cover up the truth, you do realize?

Oh, and by the way, I think I read that you said you're 38 somewhere above this post. I have to say that I've never seen a grown adult - especially one who attacks others for their apparent "immaturity" - be so patronizing to so many people. You want us to hear you out? Try not insulting us. We might be a little more receptive then. Though, I thought you would know that by now..

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By eye smite on 3/23/2008 8:38:54 AM , Rating: 2

Oh I'm sorry, did I violate your delicate sensibilities? I'm a very abrasive person at times, and when I'm getting bashed and rated down, I give it right back. That's just human nature isn't it? I asked one simple question " have you ever thought about the motivations behind Hitlers actions?" and a flood of comments saying I was justifying Hitler, misguided and a number of other things poured in. While I apologize for any offense given, my initial question was not an insult to anyone and I've never been the kind of person to take crap off of anyone. Now, the history books in America generally only teach the popular versions of history from that time and they leave alot of items out. In Japan, their history books don't even teach about what was done at Pearl Harbor, just that we dropped a horrible bomb on them, and I've read this to make sure. So, you have to in most cases, find other sources to find a more entire account of history from that time. Would be interesting to see the Russian history books as I haven't gotten my hands on one yet.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By kyp275 on 3/22/2008 2:05:33 AM , Rating: 2

oh noes, not the WALLOFTEXT!!!!

the lack of paragraph hurts my eyes, seriously

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By wordsworm on 3/22/2008 12:22:48 AM , Rating: 5

A lot of folks seem to be going off on eye smite for saying there was a good reason. He wasn't asking that. He was asking about motivation. He wants to know why Hitler did what he did.

In any case, people might not realize this but Hitler and Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg inadvertently did more for breaking the terrible stranglehold that countries such as England and France had on the rest of the world. Case in point, India won independence because England had to withdraw its military from India to fight the Nazis. India was therefore able to win free. Had the Nazis won, no doubt things such as the Jewish holocaust would have been minimized and largely forgotten, whereas the freeing of India would have been touted as one of the great things that Hitler accomplished. Winners always minimize the crimes that they committed while maximizing the atrocities of its enemies.

With thousands of Asians in concentration camps throughout Canada and the US, I can't help but ask if the allies had begun losing, if we too would have started gassing them. How far apart, in a moral sense, were our recent ancestors and our country's leaders to Adolph Hitler? How can we say we are morally superior when, at least in Canada, land treaties with Native populations were little more than toilet paper; land promised to them ended up being given to soldiers who fought in the war, while being denied to Natives who fought in the war. How can we forget what we have done to the Native populations in the last century or two that doesn't compare equally to anything Adolph Hitler did? How can people forget, at least in Canada, that 150 years ago we actually committed genocide against the Beothuk? How easily we forget the sins of our past and try to paint ourselves as heroes for having inadvertently stopped the massacre of Jews, even though throughout the war these same 'beloved' Jews were turned away as refugees from both the US and Canada? What's worse, we then created a modern concentration camp and ongoing crises in Palestine/Israel by moving those displaced Jews to a country that wasn't our own. If Canada or the US had admitted these refugees, or a section of Germany had been siphoned off for them (it was the sin of the Germans, after all, not the Palestinians). But we didn't want those Jews in our own yard. So, we put them in someone else's. Our governments and citizens had no more love for Jews than the Germans. Really, hating Jews had more to do with the Catholic church than the Nazis. We Canadians and Americans are no better than the Nazis, and we never were. We won, so the propaganda makes us look good, and makes them look bad. If they had won, the propaganda would've been spun a different way. Such is the way of history: continually written by the victors to put the losers in the worst possible light.

So, my point is to stop calling the kettle black when we ourselves are so tarnished from monstrosity. In this way we can admit that it isn't just one country that had to be changed, but rather all of humanity needs to become more human.

In so far as blaming IBM for selling technology to the Germans, shall we then blame arms makers for whenever a murder is committed using one of their guns or munitions? How many weapons are manufactured and then used to commit atrocities around the world?

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By JayDeeJohn on 3/22/2008 3:56:14 AM , Rating: 2

The reasoning behind England removing itself from India and the like was because Roosevelt refused to help Churchill until these things were done.As for the concentration camps, it was a different world back then. There was no integration, and things like marrying outside your race was frowned upon, by all races, not just one.So with little understanding of the asian people, and the very livelyhood of the free world at stake, they did what they did. To draw furthwer conclusions beyond that simply cant be done. When you buy property, you expect it to be yours. Many native american people were nomads, and didnt claim any land to be theres. Theres no justification for the atrocities that the US or Canada may have or did do to the natives, but here we are talking about it. Somehow, using this legislation maybe will allow others to do the same. And under a nazi regime, Id hardly think that possible.As far as us being or not being better than the nazis, check what I just typed, and for that matter reread what you typed. It wouldnt happen in a nazi regime. Was our past clouded? Without a doubt. Because who we are, and what we can be, we can be better

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By wordsworm on 3/22/2008 4:44:33 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
It wouldnt happen in a nazi regime.

What wouldn't happen under a Nazi regime?

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By JayDeeJohn on 3/22/2008 5:31:39 AM , Rating: 2

This forum, your replies, my replies. If we were governed by the nazis, we wouldnt have the freedoms we have today. With or without our atrocities, at least we have some ability to stop them. If something becomes so volatile it wont stand in this country. Is there bad things happening? Of course there is. Are we perfect? Far from it. But to consider any alternative, say we did what the USSR did to western europe as they did with eastern europe and add in Japan as well, then Id be worrying about our country more than I already do. Whyd we drop 2 atom bombs on Japan? We told them we had more, they wouldnt surrender, and dont forget, they attacked us first, not by selling things, or not buying our things, but by killing many innocents.We gave Japan 3 days, told them the score, I say what we did was a terrible price, but what the leaders of Japan did was one of the worst atrocities ever. We all can grow under our current governments, make a difference. Some want to control you, and make you step in line and stay there or go to jail or worse. Sorry, for this rant, but I kinda like it here compared to there

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By wordsworm on 3/22/2008 7:56:12 AM , Rating: 1

quote:
If we were governed by the nazis, we wouldnt have the freedoms we have today.

How do you know exactly that the Nazis would have successfully invaded the US/Canada so that they could have restricted our version of 'freedom of speech'?

Right now, the US and Canada will put you in jail just for smoking a joint and hiring a prostitute. From what I understand, if you get caught in the US, you'll lose your right to vote. So, your ability to change society not to persecute you is taken away. The prisons are notoriously bad for making people worse and destroying people's lives... and for what? So that DuPont can protect its plastics business? So that drug companies can make trillions of dollars off of their prescription drugs? Sorry for the rant, but if you were persecuted, maybe you'd rant too.

quote:
Whyd we drop 2 atom bombs on Japan? We told them we had more, they wouldnt surrender, and dont forget, they attacked us first, not by selling things, or not buying our things, but by killing many innocents.

So, attacking a military base justifies wiping out 2 cities. Nice logic there. So, does your logic go both ways? If the US attacks a military base, it's ok for the country to retaliate by dropping an a-bomb on NYC? Anyways, war brings out the worst in people. How about finding a way to stop killing people?

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By wordsworm on 3/22/2008 8:58:48 AM , Rating: 2

PS, I went looking around for freedom of speech issues in the US and came up with this article: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBR/is_3_3...

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By eye smite on 3/22/2008 6:04:21 PM , Rating: 4

No, did you fail history class as well. The bombs were dropped because it was kill 200k people in Japan or sacrifice a minimum of 1 million American Soldiers invading Japan to end the war. That's why the A-bombs were dropped. Jesus give me strength.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By wordsworm on 3/23/2008 7:58:46 AM , Rating: 2

I failed propaganda 101, which clearly you passed with flying colors. The a-bomb was dropped because the government wanted to see how many people it could kill. The American military could have found a better way than what actually happened. Japan didn't have to surrender to end the war. Anyways, I guess Japanese women and children don't count for much in your books. Nor did the Vietnamese villagers who were napalmed. But if Iraq should ever drop a nuke on Detroit, I'm sure you'll be screaming bloody murder over it.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By eye smite on 3/23/2008 8:20:29 AM , Rating: 3

Hehe, not trying to offend you man. Have you ever seen old footage of the entrenchements just on the shore around Japan? The whole island was a huge fortification. Military planners estimated around 1 million US personnel would be killed taking that island. When they got the surrender and started really looking at the defenses and how many civillians were ready to fight along side their military, they realized how bad they had underestimated that number. It would have made Utah Beach seem like a cake walk. Knowing the feudal system of Japan like I do going back to days of the Tokugawa Shogunate, they would have considered it an honor to die in the service of the emperor. That feudal system was very much alive until the Emperor announced surrender. So I don't look at the historical reports as propoganda on that and I'm sure Truman looked at invasion before deciding on the bomb. A third option I can see and don't know if it was even considered was setup shop in China and do coninous naval bombardments and bomber strikes from carriers and army air corp bases and bomb them back to the stone age til they surrendered, but with the high profile egos in the planning and decision making, I'm sure they never looked at that.

Anyway, peace out man, wasn't trying to offend.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By wordsworm on 3/23/2008 9:57:30 PM , Rating: 2

From what I've seen, the emperor of Japan had already been trying to negotiate for an end to the war.

What bothers me is how the sins of our own fathers are minimized while the sins of the enemy are maximized. The whole purpose of my post was to say that pretty much we're all the same when it comes to war: atrocities galore. If the US had been successfully invaded after the dropping of those bombs, I'm certain they'd have found the people who'd done the deed and put them in some kind of martial court. They would have declared that they were only following presidential orders. Then they would have been executed.

btw, I was trying not to single out the US before by including Canada with that. The truth is that Canada has always been the little guy to Uncle Sam. Even though the politicians often pretend to be neutral, if you dig deep enough one can find that Canada never did anything to oppose serious offenses that the US has committed, including but not limited to the incursion in Iraq. Quite easily Canada could have cut off trade with the US, thereby crippling the nation, until it ceased its illegal war into Iraq.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By rsmech on 3/24/2008 12:30:13 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
So, attacking a military base justifies wiping out 2 cities. Nice logic there.

You understate the significance of their attack, but it wasn't just "nice logic", it was very effective logic. It brought the end.

quote:
If the US attacks a military base, it's ok for the country to retaliate by dropping an a-bomb on NYC?

You sound as if you don't believe some wish to try for lesser reasons or greater reasons in their own mind. But until more people believe

quote:
How about finding a way to stop killing people?

they know they couldn't get away with it without a major retaliation. Besides in books Utopia never rules, it gets ruled over. That is why it doesn't exist because your adversary will take advantage of it, playing your pacifism until they can overcome you.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By wordsworm on 3/24/2008 9:03:24 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
That is why it doesn't exist because your adversary will take advantage of it, playing your pacifism until they can overcome you.

When someone's coming at you with a knife, you don't have to shoot him in the head. Shoot him in the leg or the arm. Excessive force shouldn't be used when the ability to subdue without massive fatalities can be used.

There's a reason that all the nuclear weapon bearing nations have agreed not to use nuclear weapons: it's over-the-top. It's too much destruction. It's evil. Sure, dropping nuclear warheads on cities will stop wars. Now, if the USSR had decided to attack the US with its full arsenal of warheads, that would have brought a much quicker end to the cold war. Dropping a series of nuclear bombs on the middle east would probably end the problems there.

Killing people is a bad answer to a bad problem.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By rsmech on 3/24/2008 10:09:43 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
There's a reason that all the nuclear weapon bearing nations have agreed not to use nuclear weapons: it's over-the-top.

No it's called "mutually assured destruction." Neither side wins before of after the attack. If we didn't have that Russia would have been able to change the dynamics of Europe & Asia more than they did. No talks would have changed it if they didn't perceive us as an equal threat to them.

quote:
When someone's coming at you with a knife, you don't have to shoot him in the head. Shoot him in the leg or the arm.

Dead is dead in war regardless of the means, a knife, gun, or bomb. Your analogy is only partially true. In the case of a one on one confrontation. If you want to apply it to the dropping of the bomb than just think of it as a really big knife. Having the means for force and the will to use it are 2 different things. Japan didn't think we had the will, Russia knew Reagan had the will. When we can show we have the will to use the force it opens the door for negotiations. You can't negotiate in a position of weakness.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By ATC on 3/22/2008 1:12:44 PM , Rating: 2

If wordsworm's comment doesn't deserve a 6, I don't know what does.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By SiN on 3/22/08, Rating: 0

By SiN on 3/22/2008 2:23:23 AM , Rating: 0

I don't see why your point has been voted down. It was in fact Himmler and it has been well documented that it was his and the regeims desicsion and direction to use the Jews as a scape goat to invigourate the economey.

However Hitler himself was a struggeling artist who became a broadcaster for the regeim and then worked/promited through the ranks as a spokesperson for the regeim.

People forget americans invented concentration camps. germans at the time borrowed the idea, it wasn't untill later that the killings occured.

The europians elslaved black africans - the germans enslaved jews.

You cant say it was him and him only (Hitler) that was a bad man - i personally feel he was doing good for his country, but the regeim he worked for had some extreemly questionable morals about the jews.

Hitler worked for a regeim. A regeim who instigated the slaughtering that occured and has become the scape goat when we ask who was accountable. just as the german regeim asked who was to blame for their failing economy they chose to lame the jews. I find this blaming part increadably ironic and hilariouse. Hitler wasn't the bad man - he was a regeims spokesperson. Jews weren't to blame they were a regeims (falsefied) reason for revolution.

Correct me if im wrong, ut dont down grade me through blank prejudice because i don't feel he was the one in the wrong or the one to blame.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By straycat74 on 3/22/2008 10:37:22 AM , Rating: 2

Oh yeah, and Mussolini made the trains run on time. Positive mental attitude.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By eye smite on 3/22/2008 12:29:50 PM , Rating: 1

Yes, they did choose to blame the Jews and herein lays the reason behind Hitler. The Jewish bankers were beating Germany over the head for war reperations from WW1. They were doing so in an unreasonable manner, and lets look at that. If you're bleeding a country of it's economic resources to the point where a loaf of bread costs 200 German Marcs it causes revolt. When people are starving in the streets of Germany because they cannot afford food and society as you know it begins to collapse, it causes revolt. When you have a man like Hitler and others that see their country being torn apart by a handful of people that happen to be Jewish, all of a sudden all Jews are responsible for the 20 yrs of collapse your country has seen leading up to WW2 and the total persecution of the Jews. All because of a handful of Jewish Bankers that could not use the word moderation when collecting on war debts. In other words, if they had been less greedy and let Germany pay off those debts as they could and not run the country into economic ruin, it's quite possible WW2 would have never happened. Don't accept my word though, and please be sure and slander me as a delusional fool who has spent several yrs off and on researching this very subject from a number of books. All of the heinous acts committed during WW2 start with that as the seed that grew everything else, no matter how you dice it or approach it, they all lead back to the Jewish Bankers treatment of Germany.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By SiN on 3/22/2008 2:07:37 PM , Rating: 2

agreed that they blamed the jews, over the bankers -im not sure of it but will take your word and later check up on this - but it was only done to whip the country into revolt. lets not forget the super race lie (which does make a little sense if you know your evolution), which was used with the jewish bankers excuse to accomplish the hate.

I was mearly stating it wasn't hitlers fault.

All in all ,as people have stated, if it wasn't for ww2 the economies of Germany and america couldn't have pulled through.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By mindless1 on 3/22/2008 6:10:46 AM , Rating: 1

Yes, Hitler's motives came from being insane which is commonly shown to manifest itself as not acting in a constructive manner towards one's goals. He couldn't turn the country around due to being ineffective as a leader so he just played on the lowest human emotions of hatred to feel like he was doing something - and stroking his ego to have control over others.

Does it mean all Jews were innocent in an absolute sense? Of course not, they too were human, but certainly innocent of Hitler's delusions.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By mindless1 on 3/22/2008 11:22:54 PM , Rating: 2

I take it I was rated down by a Jewish person who belives themselves truely innocent of all sins?

Don't get me wrong, Hitler was a rare bird, didn't know how to draw a distinction between disdain and action and because of it, in a moderm world should've been cast into prison before any of the monsterous thing he did were allowed to happen.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By eye smite on 3/23/2008 12:09:40 AM , Rating: 3

Hehehe, the irony to your post is, Hitler was thrown in prison for 5 yrs for an attempted coup on the gov't. That was when he had the time to write Mein Kompf, which outlined the Nazi party's goals and ambitions for all of Germany. It won the people of Germany over and started him down the road to ruling the country.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By batatadoida on 3/22/2008 6:55:05 AM , Rating: 2

Would you argue the same about Bin Laden, for instance?
Nothing justifies killing million of people. Take a trip to Krakow, Poland. An hour away from the city you will find Auschwitz. It's the most disturbing place I've been in my life.

http://www.auschwitz.org.pl/new/index.php?language...

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By Smiting Eye on 4/10/2008 8:32:37 PM , Rating: 1

Most people never have.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By bobsmith1492 on 3/21/2008 7:37:19 PM , Rating: 2

The Nazis DID in fact use some of IBM's machines for records at prison camps. Did that cause the Holocaust? Heck no, it just made it easier to figure out all of what happened behind the scenes after the fact. They were used to record data on prisoners - death camp inmates. Should IBM have been selling goods to the Nazis? Probably not. Did they sell them materials while we were at war, that is the most important question. I don't remember the answer, though (Holocaust class was a year ago now...) Oddly enough, Henry Ford was also a somewhat outspoken Nazi backer as well. Some of the newsletters he put out are pretty creepy.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By AstroCreep on 3/21/2008 7:52:14 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
..but blaming IBM for the holocaust?

I don't think he's "Blaming" IBM for the Holocaust, but perhaps comparing them to the men who stood trial at Nuremberg who claim they were "Simply following orders" (what with Yahoo and Google who are "simply following orders" of doing business abroad).
Plus there are a few books written on the subject that accuse the former heads of IBM of being Nazi-sympathizers (which would make be believe they were "Very bad men").

Does the current IBM deserve to be compared to Yahoo for (potential) violations of human-rights? No, but it does have a very dark chapter in its history, and I personally feel that everyone should be made aware of it...cause-nipping politician or not.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By herrdoktor330 on 3/21/2008 8:39:24 PM , Rating: 1

I concur.

Business, for better or worse, is business. When you have a government waiving money in your face for your product, you tend to put morals aside. That's just the evils of capitalism. If you don't take that money, you're not benefiting your stockholders and they can sue (like Yahoo's initial refusal of the MS buyout). The same thing goes for the Yahoo China deal. The last thing they want is to be blocked by the Great FireWall of China. That would be a severe loss of ad revenue from a potential billion viewers. And I'm sure the stockholders would balk at that extreme loss of revenue.

<rant>
I guess that's the great catch 22 of the Western World of business: Sure. We all want to defend civil liberties, free speech, human life, and so on. But it would be socialistic or communistic to control the behavior of business based on morals and values. So, we're going to sell technology to people doing horrible things because they're buying it and we're going to rat out journalists and block video content to certain parts of the globe because we want them to see the other content (and ads). That's the bread and butter of a lot of people; employees, shareholders, and CEOs alike. The Western world would rather die than be "Socialist" or "Communist" and control how business does business.

In the end... the businessman will sell the rope to the mob that they will hang him with.
</rant>

But don't get me wrong. I love capitalism. I like money. Money buys stuff... and stuff, as they say, is pretty cool.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By B3an on 3/21/08, Rating: -1

RE: Par for the course

By Ringold on 3/21/2008 9:53:54 PM , Rating: 5

Any other civilized country?

I guess Europe must not be civilized, then, for doing business with Iraq when the world knew he'd committed genocide. Not reason enough to invade, perhaps, but that's a different issue. It's fairly well known Saddam purchased a good bit of weaponry from French defense firms, such as the Mirage fighter.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950...

Theres an interesting link, from 1989, where half their weapon exports went to North Africa, which unless I'm not mistaken was no better with human rights then than it is today. That was just the first thing Google provided, I'm sure it could provide much more.

And I wonder; how much business (and oil) is flowing between Sudan and Europe? What countries have firms operating in Zimbabwe? Egypt has a reputation for brutal suppression of political opponents; how much business is flowing there? What of even Cuba? That's not exactly a friendly, freedom-loving island of prosperity and benevolent government, and yet if I'm not mistaken the United States is the only country with the stones to maintain an embargo.

In fact, think back to recent history; what country is it that has been at the forefront of pushing for reduced business ties to dangerous regimes? The US.

Europeans are far too full of themselves. Their businesses are as opportunistic as American businesses, and inherently so due to the nature of multinational companies transcending political boundaries, they simply keep their nose pointed skyward.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By charliee on 3/21/08, Rating: 0

RE: Par for the course

By Samus on 3/22/2008 3:43:49 AM , Rating: 1

I think a lot of people here forget why american (and many international) businesses aided the Nazi's...

Because at the time, IT LOOKED LIKE THEY WERE GOING TO WIN.

We didn't even want to get involved because honestly, we didn't want to go to war with them. The Japanese, well, no problem, for obvious reasons.

What's next, they're going to pin Ford Motors for selling the Nazi party technology and materials? It was a business decision, and actually a very profitable one.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By lompocus on 3/23/2008 5:55:33 PM , Rating: 2

...and, after all was said and done it turned out to be a bad business decision. They aided in the slaughter of millions, in whatever little way, and like an RTS even when they thouht they would be making the best business decision of their lives the table turns and everything falls down on them.

So now we sue ford motors for selling the nazi party technology and materials, because the very profitable decision resulted, whether they knew it or not, in being a very immoral and, now, disastrous decision.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By eye smite on 3/23/2008 6:51:35 PM , Rating: 3

No man, what the congressman is saying is companies need to be more aware of what they're doing. Making a normal business decision that turns out aiding a repressive regime is irresponsible. For every customer a company says no to, there's 4 more waiting in the winds. So really, whether it be back then or now or in the future, companies have a moral and ethical obligation when conducting their business.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By bupkus on 3/21/2008 6:17:57 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Just another 2-bit politician trying to get camera time so he can get reelected.

There you go. That must be the reason any politician says anything.

What insight!

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By Ringold on 3/21/2008 9:57:07 PM , Rating: 2

Whats sad is that these tactics work!

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By themadmilkman on 3/21/2008 10:21:54 PM , Rating: 1

I know enough congressman to know that it isn't always the case, and yes, the comment was a bit of a troll. But if you read the linked transcript, you can tell that Rep. Smith is simply trying to get face time for a bill that he authored in any way possible. And yes, one of the reasons for doing this is to show his own constituency what a good job he's been doing on Capitol Hill.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By bupkus on 3/21/2008 6:32:47 PM , Rating: 2

Sorry, I accidentally clicked the <Worth Reading> button.

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By randomnumber on 3/22/08, Rating: -1

RE: Par for the course

By lompocus on 3/23/2008 5:49:55 PM , Rating: 1

Oh yes, let's turn this into a american sucks middle east topic again! YAY, MIDDLE EAST FIGHT! WHOOHOO!

China's censorship undermines human values. They are repressive, duh you idiot!

We candidly detain those idiots that strap bombs to their chests and blow themselves up without trial because THEY JUST TRIED TO FUCKING BLOW OUR FUCKING HEADS OFF! We initiated middle eastern war BECAUSE ITS FULL OF BACKWARDS MORONS THAT CAN'T TELL THE ENEMY FROM THEIR GRANDPA! We torture not with pain, but by getting to their head. By being nice! WE DON'T FUCKING PULL THEIR FUCKING NAILS OUT, WHIP THEM TILL THEY DIE, OR CUT THEIR DICKS OFF LIKE SADDAM'S HENCHMEN DID!

And yet we are totally in the wrong because you're a racist son of a bitch and don't see the middle east as worthy for salvation. But you say Oh it's illegal!, and we say because the UN's declaration of 'illegal war' was made up by a committee which was mostly made up of minor dicatorships!.

Now let's see just what all the idiots here are gonna come up with next to make this thread go on longer...

Parent

RE: Par for the course

By lompocus on 3/23/2008 5:39:32 PM , Rating: 1

no, actually it has merit. So what, you're gonna say it's bad that SOMEONE EVENTUALLY decided to talk about this?

Look at google. They have fallen in line with making their Chinese search engine in accordance with chinese law: no PORN...and CENSORSHIP UP THE YIN-YANG (pun intended).

Now explain to me how it is perfectly legal to censor 2 billion people? You know, i think I have a few comments on this before in dailytech. I got rated down so much for this particular comment a while back that now I have to inpput a number verification on every post I make here!

you fucking morons. you have no concept of reality. Half of your have had your life handed to you on a silver platter with all you could ever desire lain out on a well-worn path in front of you (a minor exxageration but quite true when compared with the people in question when referring to google's chinese clients).

Let's look at how you all endorse piracy.
You all are fine with preventing establishment of nuclear-defense sites in the world.
There's many other examples here. If someone had a comment history on me it would give you all the things you guys are backwards on.

But it's a politician. It involves our overlord technical companies. That politician must automatically be evil.

Parent

yes.. its a crime for companies to follow the law of the land they reside in

By kattanna on 3/21/2008 6:05:50 PM , Rating: 4

PLEASE... we expect any company operating within our borders to follow our laws..

so any company that operates within any other country, that branch must follow the local laws as well.

but hey.. that doesnt make for good press and scare mongering

RE: yes.. its a crime for companies to follow the law of the land they reside in

By bupkus on 3/21/2008 6:36:43 PM , Rating: 3

Wow, finally a generation that understands it's all about business, not about ethics, human rights or freedom of speech.

What the hell does the U.S.A. stand for, anyway?

Parent

RE: yes.. its a crime for companies to follow the law of the land they reside in

By EidolWays on 3/21/2008 7:34:45 PM , Rating: 2

There's a problem here. Companies in such "oppressive countries" can operate here because, obviously, our laws are considerably better when it comes to human rights. However, if our companies try to operate in countries run by these "oppressive regimes" and play by their rules, our politicians cry foul.

So they're working to pass an act that will force US companies operating overseas to stop giving information to the governments under which they operate? Even though they'd be expected to turn over same said information in the US?

Two-faced, no? Even better, if this act passes, the end effect it will have is to get our companies simply booted out of these foreign countries. They won't play by the rules? Fine, then they don't get to play.

Spreading democracy and respect for human rights? All well and good. Trying to do it by forcing corporations to be the vehicle? Not so good. Isn't that what the UN is supposed to be doing?

Keep in mind that though such companies as Google may be based in the US, the employees they pay in these countries are citizens of that country. You're not condemning US citizens. You're condemning citizens of that country.

Parent

RE: yes.. its a crime for companies to follow the law of the land they reside in

By Ringold on 3/21/2008 10:03:27 PM , Rating: 2

I think there is still room for things like embargo's, but using trade deals, regulations and tax treatment to force companies to be vessels of our version of morality is just plain underhanded -- and IMHO arrogant and disrespectful of local cultures, something politically correct people have always told me was a bad thing. :P Great post.

Parent

RE: yes.. its a crime for companies to follow the law of the land they reside in

By EidolWays on 3/22/2008 12:52:21 PM , Rating: 2

Dankeschon!

But I agree. Trade embargoes on specific countries, like the one we've levied against Iran, can be highly useful and are justified when the nation's welfare is on the line. Given our country's economic status (even such as it is now), talking with our dollars can have a tremendous effect. This was equally true in past decades. In this case, yes, the companies of interest should follow the embargo. If IBM disobeyed an embargo levied against Germany during WW2, then they deserve whatever tarnished reputation they get from it.

Of course, this still leaves the question of what to do with any employees that are working in the nation in question. They'd be kind of stranded.

And the moral of the story is "war is ugly".

Parent

RE: yes.. its a crime for companies to follow the law of the land they reside in

By eye smite on 3/22/2008 1:55:09 PM , Rating: 3

Capitolism before democracy now days. It's common practice in this country to trounce on peoples rights in the name of turning profit, or chasing greed.

Parent

RE: yes.. its a crime for companies to follow the law of the land they reside in

By eman7613 on 3/23/2008 7:53:31 PM , Rating: 2

neither capitalism nor democracy are inherently good or evil, they both simply have their pros and cons. Also, thats apples & oranges, capitalism is a form of market operation, democracy is a form of government. China is much more capitalist then it was a decade ago, but its just about as communist as it was a decade ago. Russia (USSR) was communist and closed market, now its the same* as us.

* provided putin doesn't get everything he wants.

Parent

Think today

By crystal clear on 3/22/2008 4:28:00 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
Smith charges that these corporations not only aided “repressive” regimes, but did all they could to cover up business dealings in order to continue their business in these countries.

Then what about IRAN ?

What better example than IRAN

Iran can procure/import just anything you name it,they want from anywhere in the world.

Spareparts,technology,processors,computers,softwa re,missile technology,nuclear technolgy etc etc
You just name it........
Computer professionals to engineers to technicians to ....
anything under the sky.

Iran is a serious threat to the world & just nobody can stop them & nobody has the will power to do so.

As for IBM ...

Well they want IBM to pay compensations just like Germany does to Holocast victims.

RE: Think today

By RaptorZA on 3/22/2008 8:19:28 AM , Rating: 2

Not to offend anyone , but the USA (with all the above power and a whole lot more) could also be seen as a threat to other countries in the same way.

but don't listen to me I'm new here and may possibly be a robot.

Parent

RE: Think today

By crystal clear on 3/22/2008 10:14:57 AM , Rating: 2

Sanctions dont work -the sanction busters hard at work...

As for the USA ....certainly NOT dangerous like Iran.

quote:
I'm new here

Welcome to D.T........

Parent

RE: Think today

By Strunf on 3/22/2008 10:18:32 PM , Rating: 3

"As for the USA ....certainly NOT dangerous like Iran."

Depends where you are... knowing how the US makes war when it feels like...

Parent

RE: Think today

By wordsworm on 3/22/2008 11:55:56 AM , Rating: 1

Ok, the only war I can remember Iran got in was the one where Iran had to defend itself from a US backed Iraq which used chemical weapons in its attack. How can a country which doesn't attack others be considered a threat? Maybe you figure they want revenge for all the crap that they've gotten from the west over the last 100 years: 1988 US shoots down an Iranian passenger plane. 1980-1988 defending itself against Iraq. 1953 Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh is seized for trying to nationalize Iran's oil. What the west needs to do is stop victimizing them and spreading lies about them.

Parent

RE: Think today

By eye smite on 3/22/2008 2:05:39 PM , Rating: 3

No, no, no..........you are totally missing the point of what this congressman said. He was comparing the otherwise seemingly innocent business dealings of IBM pre WW2 with Yahoo's actions in China. IBM in the interests of making money sold equipment to the Nazi's, a seemingly innocent business dealing prior to WW2. The end result was this equipment was used by the Germans during WW2 for the persecution of Jews. I have no doubt that once the Nazi's real plans became apparent IBM sold them no more equipment. The point is persecution is occuring due to seemingly innocent business practices that have far reaching impacts. What the Congressman is saying is, don't cooperate with a regime overseas until you've really questioned why they want this information and what it will be used for. It's alot easier to say no, than to live with the shame of having someone imprisoned because you complied with a historically noted repressive gov't. God above, are you all so daft you can't understand this?

Parent

and we still can't sue att for giving customer

By NickF001 on 3/21/2008 6:08:59 PM , Rating: 5

records to the gov.

RE: and we still can't sue att for giving customer

By Master Kenobi

(blog) on 3/21/2008 6:18:59 PM , Rating: 2

You think AT&T had a choice? Hah!

Parent

Freedom for us?

By ajdavis on 3/21/2008 6:24:21 PM , Rating: 2

So as opposed to limiting the freedoms of an already oppressed society, which I think is wrong, we... limit the freedoms of another? Another society just trying to run their business in a culturally sensitive way?

RE: Freedom for us?

By bupkus on 3/21/2008 6:31:01 PM , Rating: 2

What are you trying to say?

Parent

RE: Freedom for us?

By fifolo on 3/21/2008 7:17:13 PM , Rating: 2

Something to to with celery, hamsters, and cheese.
I think.

Parent

Perhaps the good representative would like to check out the history of...

By Amiga500 on 3/21/2008 6:05:32 PM , Rating: 5

one Prescott Bush.

Then he can chuck some stones in that direction too.

Pathetic

By FS on 3/21/2008 9:12:14 PM , Rating: 2

What a pathetic person he is, he knows he's playing with human emotions by using Holocaust and might as well succeed in what he wants. If IBM(only helped indirectly as they weren't designed with the purpose to kill someone) was/is responsible for Holocaust then what about our gov't which sold weapons(purpose is to harm/kill someone) to corrupt governments that were used to kill thousands of innocent people and we still supply these kind of weapons to many countries(which trickle down to terrorists too) all over the world.

RE: Pathetic

By eye smite on 3/22/2008 6:32:02 PM , Rating: 3

Your reading comprehension is really off. The congressman is saying that innocent looking business decisions can have far reaching impacts as IBM's decisions did. They are not the cause of the holocaust and he is not saying that. He is saying by them making a seemingly normal decision in the pursuit of profit inadvertently found their equipment being used in heinous acts. He is saying by yahoo giving that mans info to China, whether intended or not, they landed a man in jail by a gov't known to suppress human rights that we so avidly enjoy in the US. What he is ultimately saying is it's a companies responsibility to uphold the freedoms we all enjoy if they're based in a county like America and not help persecute people with a seemingly innocent business deal. In other words, don't help China oppress peoples basic human freedoms because they chose to speak out against the gov't. Look up riots in tibet on youtube and see how many the Chinese killed there on March 15th this year. Look up Tienanmen Square, and see what the Chinese gov't does.

Parent

Godwin's Law

By Yawgm0th on 3/21/2008 9:33:30 PM , Rating: 3

I call Godwin's Law.

RE: Godwin's Law

By eman7613 on 3/23/2008 7:55:47 PM , Rating: 2

i was wondering how that worked in a situation like this. Will be in the history books some day (or at least wikipedia i hope)

Parent

well....

By wwwebsurfer on 3/21/2008 8:13:03 PM , Rating: 4

The same computers host WebMD, SaveTheWhales, and a horde of porno sites.

All I see here is that IBM was, is, and hopefully will continue to be a global leader in technology.

When politicians talk about engineering subjects.....

By phxfreddy on 3/23/2008 1:50:36 AM , Rating: 2

I am never surprised by their lack of anything more than a superficial understanding. Hell superficial is overstating it. If superficial has 7 layers of skin they're still only rubbing tanning lotion on the part they think they undestand and even that they fook up. China is being force fed dollars and without a shot being fired we're single handedly turning them into capitalists. What's this guy miss the old days when we went to war to do this???? Politician, government worker, DMV ....they're all the same banana. I'd be less dissappointed if I saw union member next to my name. And that's pretty bad.

RE: When politicians talk about engineering subjects.....

By Jeffk464 on 3/24/2008 2:26:27 AM , Rating: 2

You guys left out the fact that Hitler got millions of Germans killed and led Germany to total destruction. He also gave the Stalin the excuse to take over and brutally control eastern Europe and half of Germany for half a century.

I think it could all be summed up:

Hitler = Bad

Parent

Why didn't Black win his case?

By flipsu5 on 3/24/2008 4:24:19 AM , Rating: 2

http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/828...

RE: Why didn't Black win his case?

By flipsu5 on 3/24/2008 5:16:56 AM , Rating: 2

It is because while you certainly don't want to consciously help repressive regimes, it may be impossible to prevent the initial and maybe even the continuing deployment of the inhumanity-enabling technology in the first place.

Laptops, cellphones were sold to and used by the terror cell members who planned and carried out events like 9-11. Microsoft and Intel and cellphone makers, in this way, have unwittingly assisted terror attacks by enabling crucial communications for coordinating the attacks, in the same way that IBM's Hollerith machines really helped the organization of the Holocaust. How do we expect to curtail the sales or access of this technology to terrorists?

Parent

iBM's nensensicall story concerning the holocaust

By golf nut on 3/21/2008 8:44:27 PM , Rating: 3

While we are on this subject, why then dont we place all the blame for 9/11 on Boeing.

These primitive computers may have been stolen in England and placed on a U-boat headed across the english channel. If Germany could build sophisticated encryption and decryption technology 65 years ago it could also conceive computing machines.

hmmm...

By omnicronx on 3/21/2008 6:00:26 PM , Rating: 2

So does this mean.. Hitler is off the hook?

Please have a nice cup of *@*#!$##@@#*@*$!!

By tubalcain on 3/21/2008 9:55:31 PM , Rating: 2

Coca Cola, Ford, JP Morgan, etc. I don't see anyone taking those guys on for the same issue.

the other side of the story....

By HighWing on 3/21/2008 10:27:07 PM , Rating: 2

I'm not saying anything about the war, but in reading this I can't help but think "What if the nazi's had won the war?" In that sort of a twisted reality, wouldn't they (nazi's) be doing the same thing, if not more so, to all the companies that helped the USA, Briten, France etc....? War is just that WAR and the rules are radically different depending on which side you are on. But from a business side, if you don't pick a side, you can stay somewhat neutral and thus sell to both sides which in turn brings in more money. And bottom line, business is all about making money. Now I'm not saying weather it's right or wrong, but what I am saying is in war, you don't know which side is going to win. So if your a business that stands to lose big if one side wins, your going to try and minimize losses in that case and set up to still operate regrading the outcome. Anyone who has started a business knows that you have to plan a business model under the idea that the business will ALWAYS be in operation, so in a way I'm saying that what IBM did was just a side of standard business operating procedures to ensure continued operation. And to punish companies for doing that would make us no better then china or any other country we "say" is bad.

Now to the current question of the yahoo, china situation. Again, I have to side with the fact that they are operating in another country and MUST abide by that countries rules. I'm not saying those rules are right or wrong, I'm saying that WE can't make that judgment because it's not our country. What we CAN do is refuse to operate in that country.... but then thats not always good business. So you have to make compromises or not at all. Those are the options we should be focusing on. If we really want to force China to change, then pass bills that prevent companies from operating in China, don't tell the companies that they can't abide by China's laws if they're operating in China because the companies can't do that and it only makes us look stupid for even trying.

This isnt about Hitler

By JayDeeJohn on 3/22/2008 3:30:32 AM , Rating: 2

Even tho Hitler influenced many people such as Suddam Husseins uncle, who raised lil Saddm, and both wer influenced by Hitler and his fascism, its more about people like Hitler and Saddam, those whod hold anything against anyone for their cause and theirs alone.I think it may be good legislation, but pointing fingers only causes division and slows the progress. Yes we created the A bomb from german scientist that escaped Hitlers fascism, and this legislation may help similar people in the future. The Jews didnt get what was coming to them, nobody deserved what happened to them or the millions of others. Roosevelt lifted this country from depression by improving it, building dams, roads etc. He also avoided joining into the war,but thats history. I think we need to look at this in a serious light, and exspose those that would harm anyone that speaks out. If someone speaks out here (USA) their words soon reveal their intent. As a democracy, we the people decide whether to listen or not. I say, let them speak here there and everywhere, without prejudice or penalty

Didn't make a difference

By mindless1 on 3/22/2008 6:16:50 AM , Rating: 2

WIthout IBM's equipment, they'd have fewe records and have killed more *innocent* people (opposed to the innocent people they declared guilty even though they weren't).

We ought to limit or ban sale of military technology but trying to keep anyone in the dark ages will just further their reasons for trying to strike out at others.

Easy to say now

By Polynikes on 3/22/2008 11:37:06 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
House Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) took the opportunity to berate IBM for its involvement in selling and programming equipment to Nazi officials leading up to and during World War II.

Hindsight is 20/20.

What the Nazis were up to wasn't entirely</a> apparent until the Allies liberated the concentration camps. Prior to that there were reports from escaped victims that weren't even believed for the first few years of the war because the claims seemed outrageous. They were dismissed as war propaganda. It wasn't until the latter part of the war that the accounts were taken seriously by the Allies.

Makes me think "Current day Church and State separation"

By psaus on 3/22/2008 2:27:46 PM , Rating: 2

Except this would be separation of State and Business...

When politics start meddling this deep in corp affairs, bad things happen.
We pass this bill, our domestic conglomerates will become measly little mom and pop shops. Not a direction I think our country needs...
Only one man's opinion though...

Remembering past events that put some of us to shame

By golf nut on 3/22/2008 6:18:18 PM , Rating: 2

In the case of nazi germany, some of you may have forgotten that decent germans did travel to England many years before the war and warned the Neville Chamberlain government of what would happen.They knew what Hitler was. The British chose to disregard the warnings until germany invaded Poland.Offering an olive branch to a person you know will try to kill you will not prevent him from killing you.The world learned a very good lesson with W.W. 2. Psychological profiling of leaders in power can provide warnings and avert wars before they begin.
The wisdom of foresight is so much better than the wisdom of heinsight.

Have cake... eat it too?

By GlennAl on 3/24/2008 6:36:03 AM , Rating: 2

US-based tech companies doing business in foreign countries are legally obliged to observe the laws of those foreign countries, just as foreign companies are obliged to observe US laws. That's what treaties and membership in organizations such as the WTO require. You don't get to pick and choose which laws follow. The US can place trade restrictions on companies, but saying that, for example, the Bill of Rights can be enforced in China is silly to the point of being ridiculous. Don't like Chinese policy? Don't allow business and trade with them.

Stop already!

By brightstar on 3/24/2008 7:28:06 PM , Rating: 2

Can someone tell me why this keeps coming up every ten years or so. The Jewish people aren't the only people that have been subject to oppression. Why, in a time when so many people are dying for senseless acts of violence all around the world does this keep coming up, I guess some are right when they say the color of your skin makes a difference?

"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer

DailyTech Poll

Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine?
Microsoft Internet Explorer
Mozilla Firefox
Google Chrome
Apple Safari
Opera
Other (list in comments section)

44 Comments

Latest Headlines

11/20/2009 Daily Hardware Reviews
November 20, 2009, 1:10 PM

Hackers Reverse Ill-Effects of Apple's Update, Restoring Intel Atom Support
November 20, 2009, 12:59 PM

China Defense Ministry Targeted by Cyber Attacks 2 Million Times
November 20, 2009, 12:42 PM

Interview With AT&T About Verizon's "Deceptive" Ads
November 20, 2009, 11:22 AM

California Votes to Regulate TV Power Consumption
November 20, 2009, 11:07 AM

POET Cuts Its Cellulosic Ethanol Costs from $4.13/Gallon to $2.35/Gallon
November 20, 2009, 7:43 AM

More Headlines

Most Popular ArticlesUpdate: Potential Fix for 1 Million Banned Xbox 360's Has Arrived
November 13, 2009, 12:00 PM
Easy Fix to Prevent Microsoft From Bricking Xbox 360s HDDs Arrives
November 18, 2009, 6:41 AM
Bill Gates Says Apple's Jobs Has "More Inspiration" Than Any Other Tech Leader
November 13, 2009, 5:10 PM
OCZ Technology Announces 3.5" 1TB Colossus SSDs
November 17, 2009, 6:48 PM
Verizon Mocks AT&T's Ad Lawsuit, Commenting "The Truth Hurts"
November 17, 2009, 6:01 AM

Latest Blog Posts

Final AMD Contest to Celebrate 40th Anniversary Starts Monday
Shane McGlaun - Nov 19, 2009, 10:16 AM

FBI: Hackers Targeting PR Companies, Law Firms
Michael Barkoviak - Nov 18, 2009, 5:48 PM

Facebook Access Coming to PS3, Lacks Basic Functionality
Shane McGlaun - Nov 17, 2009, 10:08 AM

DailyTech Kindle Edition: Just in Time for the Holidays
Brandon Hill - Nov 16, 2009, 5:31 PM

GM Selects Finalists For Chevy Volt Color
Jason Mick - Nov 16, 2009, 3:00 PM