NationStates Jolt Archive

The softwood lumber dispute ( http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/HET/Softwood/) between Canada and the US has been a long and bitter one between nations that have strong economic ties. In essence, the dispute is over US claims that Canada is unfairly subsidising it's softwood lumber industry, and this hurts the US's domestic industry. In response, the US government imposes anti-dumping duties on imports to the tune of about $5 billion dollars so far.

However, a recent decision by a NAFTA panel has ruled in Canada's favour, saying that there is no material threat to the US. Under this ruling, the US is required to pay back duties collected, and cease levying them. The US has refused ( http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2005/2005-08-12-04.asp), and stated that they will deal with the matter through negotiation, not litigation.

We have been negotiating for 20 years. When is the US going to live up to its commitments under a trade agreement that it was instrumental in creating? How can we, as a trading partner, trust a government that picks and chooses when to adhere to trade regulations?

The softwood lumber dispute ( http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/HET/Softwood/) between Canada and the US has been a long and bitter one between nations that have strong economic ties. In essence, the dispute is over US claims that Canada is unfairly subsidising it's softwood lumber industry, and this hurts the US's domestic industry. In response, the US government imposes anti-dumping duties on imports to the tune of about $5 billion dollars so far.

However, a recent decision by a NAFTA panel has ruled in Canada's favour, saying that there is no material threat to the US. Under this ruling, the US is required to pay back duties collected, and cease levying them. The US has refused ( http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2005/2005-08-12-04.asp), and stated that they will deal with the matter through negotiation, not litigation.

We have been negotiating for 20 years. When is the US going to live up to its commitments under a trade agreement that it was instrumental in creating? How can we, as a trading partner, trust a government that picks and chooses when to adhere to trade regulations?

I notice nowhere in there is a denial of subsidization.

We have been negotiating for 20 years. When is the US going to live up to its commitments under a trade agreement that it was instrumental in creating? How can we, as a trading partner, trust a government that picks and chooses when to adhere to trade regulations?
Short answer?

Never.

We shouldn't be trading partners with people who can't be taken at their word. They are criminals.

Screw that. We should just invade Canada for their softwood lumber.

Screw that. We should just invade Canada for their softwood lumber.
Go for it.

I notice nowhere in there is a denial of subsidization.
Depends on how you view subsidy, I guess.

We don't have the same regulations as the US when it comes to granting logging rights to companies. They view our way as being a subsidy. We don't. We are far more generous, I'll grant that, but NAFTA tribunals and WTO tribunals have consistently ruled in our favor. The US has used appeal after appeal in an effort to delay the final verdict. When it comes, they refuse to adhere to it.

Yes no really we should invade Canada...now that we have our troops in Iraq and Iran it'd be really smart to spread ourselves that much thinner. And then when we're done we cane invade Ireland for their potatoes because of the competition with Idaho. Yes always just take things with brute force. Are you one of those bullies that constantly beats up kids for their lunch money?

Go for it.
Yea, I'll be the first to form a resistance army.

Yes no really we should invade Canada...now that we have our troops in Iraq and Iran it'd be really smart to spread ourselves that much thinner. And then when we're done we cane invade Ireland for their potatoes because of the competition with Idaho. Yes always just take things with brute force. Are you one of those bullies that constantly beats up kids for their lunch money?

I think someone's irony detector is broken.

welcome to our nightmare. There is NO trusting governments or the corporations that manipulate them..or does the government manipulate the corporation..well that's another discussion. If you're negoiating over softwood rights you should expect a good rogering and hope they at least have the decency to do it privately

Yea, I'll be the first to form a resistance army.
I'll be standing right alongside, offering whatever support I can, as unfortunately, I am not one moved to actual violence. I am however, moved to resistance.

I notice nowhere in there is a denial of subsidization.

as if the u.s. doesn't subsidize it's own logging fat cats

as if the u.s. doesn't subsidize it's own logging fat cats
With the tariff they impose on our lumber, to add insult to injury.

The softwood lumber dispute ( http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/HET/Softwood/) between Canada and the US has been a long and bitter one between nations that have strong economic ties. In essence, the dispute is over US claims that Canada is unfairly subsidising it's softwood lumber industry, and this hurts the US's domestic industry. In response, the US government imposes anti-dumping duties on imports to the tune of about $5 billion dollars so far.

However, a recent decision by a NAFTA panel has ruled in Canada's favour, saying that there is no material threat to the US. Under this ruling, the US is required to pay back duties collected, and cease levying them. The US has refused ( http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2005/2005-08-12-04.asp), and stated that they will deal with the matter through negotiation, not litigation.

We have been negotiating for 20 years. When is the US going to live up to its commitments under a trade agreement that it was instrumental in creating? How can we, as a trading partner, trust a government that picks and chooses when to adhere to trade regulations?


I could actually end this dispute with quickness. All Canada has to do is threaten to back out of NAFTA. One of the major crafters of this scam is the Rockefellers. They also happen to be owners of a major chunk of the softwood industry in the US. If you go to most any US Military base in the US, you will most likely find that the wooded areas in and around that base are owned by them. They farm the trees and lease the land to the military for training. Care to guess how much the military had to pay them for every tree we destroyed? I don't really know the answer, but, I do know it was an article 15 and a statement of charges for 2K on each one if we cut them down.

Whether the US invades Canada, or Canada invades the US over this, it might just be a good thing.

Then the rest of the world will finally realize that the American govt has gotten out of hand. And maybe then they will tune into the citizens' band broadcast channels and hear the message from the american middle and lower class:

HELP! OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN TAKEN HOSTAGE BY CORPORATE MADMEN! SEND ARMS AND TROOPS AND MAKE A REGIME CHANGE IN OUR COUNTRY!
WE WILL WELCOME YOU WITH FLOWERS AND CANDY, IF YOU CAN DEPOSE THIS RUTHLESS DICTATOR! WE CANNOT DO IT OURSELVES, AS TOO MANY AMERICANS HAVE BEEN BRAINWASHED OR ARE RECEIVING DIRECT MONETARY BENEFITS OFF THE CORRUPTION. HELP!!!

I have not been following the details of the dispute, so my comments must by necessity be general. I can provide some anecdotal evidence of what the problem is, though. As a forester, I'm involved in the softwood log side of the industry - not lumber industry.

The problem began in the early 1980's when Canadian lumber began coming into the northeastern US in large quantity at very low price. At the same time, they began to buy softwood logs (and I sold lots of those) at higher prices than local mills could pay. I don't recall the price differential exactly since it's been over 20 years, but if I said that they bought and sold at 20% to the market I wouldn't be too far off.

The effect was immediate, local mills began to close up, the effect on the regional economy was noticeable. There was considerable complaining and demand for government action, but market forces worked in favor of Canada for a number of years. I believe it was president Reagan who first placed a tariff on Canadian lumber, but it was too little too late for this area - the mills never re-opened, and only the biggest mills survived.

The only possible explanation for the economics of the Canadian lumber issue is that their mills were subsidized by government (either directly or through Crown stumpage price reductions), something Canada denied. Personally I believe that there were subsidies for the simple fact that the cost of labor and sawmill equipment are comparable between the countries, and since this is such a narrow-profit industry, there is no other explanation for the price differential than a government gift of cheap timber. In other words, if all things were equal the Canadian lumber should have been priced within a few cents of American lumber, this being determined by manufacturing cost and the price of raw materials (stumpage).

I realize that the topic of the thread is the supposed American indifference to trade agreements with Canada. I have no comment, but keep in mind that sawmills, like dairy farms, are industries that are difficult to replace once abandoned. The Canadian lumber flood and log purchase ruined many mills in the northeastern US, and it may be that the US is foreseeing the doom of the softwood lumber industry in more of the country. True, the consumer benefits from lower lumber prices, but what's to say that Canada isn't taking the Wal-Mart approach - drive the local businesses out with low prices, then raise them once thay have a monopoly?

Is this resistance army going to offer punch and pie?

And if we invade Canada where will the new draft-dodgers go?

I notice nowhere in there is a denial of subsidization.
Of course we have denied ( http://economics.about.com/cs/agriculture/a/softwood_lumber.htm) it.

In the United States, the majority of the softwood lumber harvested is from privately owned land. This is not the case in Canada, where most of the lumber harvested comes from Crown land. That is land owned by the federal or a provincial government. The way Canadian governments and American ones set the price they charge corporations to harvest this land is quite different and is the basis for the softwood lumber dispute. In the United States, logging rights are sold by using a competitive auction. In Canada stumpage fees are set by the government. These stumpage fees, which are based on a number of factors such as labor and transportation costs, tend to be significantly lower than the prices which come out of the U.S. auctions. The American government claims that these low prices constitute a subsidy to Canadian producers. The softwood lumber dispute stems from these prices and the actions the American government has taken in response.

The US is claiming these are subsidies, the NAFTA panel rules otherwise.

Is this resistance army going to offer punch and pie?

If they are, I think I might have to join too.

Free Trade was supposed to open markets, by going back on your word you've put the screws to us. How many rulings in Canada's favour by NAFTA and the WTO will it take for America to live up to its' word?

Frankly, it doesn't matter. I simply do not expect America to ever bargain in good faith - on any level. Whatsoever.

I'd expect more of an even chance bargaining with a pack of wild dogs than with you consummate bullshit artists and brigands.

as if the u.s. doesn't subsidize it's own logging fat cats

I am not aware of any. Not that it can't have happened, but in over 30 years in forest management have I seen any.

Loggers buy stumpage competitively on the open market (whether from the public or private landowners), sell logs to mills who compete with one another for the product. It's as free-market as it can get.

I realize that the topic of the thread is the supposed American indifference to trade agreements with Canada. I have no comment, but keep in mind that sawmills, like dairy farms, are industries that are difficult to replace once abandoned. The Canadian lumber flood and log purchase ruined many mills in the northeastern US, and it may be that the US is foreseeing the doom of the softwood lumber industry in more of the country. True, the consumer benefits from lower lumber prices, but what's to say that Canada isn't taking the Wal-Mart approach - drive the local businesses out with low prices, then raise them once thay have a monopoly?
The NAFTA panels says it. Since this is an agreement the US pushed for, desired, and supports fully, you can not simply say, "Hey, this doesn't work in our favour, so we're going to back out now." It can't, under law...and yet it does. The worse thing is...the ruling panel has no teeth, and we are so intertwined with the US economy, we can not even JOKE about pulling out of NAFTA as some sort of threat. Just look at what losing the US market did to our cattle industry. This should not be an economic war of escalation, where we try to 'up the ante' and think of new ways of ecomically fucking one another over.

NAFTA is not supposed to favour the US over Canada and Mexico...and yet too often it does. Play fair, or scrap the deal.

{snip}
Originally Posted by article linked to
In the United States, the majority of the softwood lumber harvested is from privately owned land. This is not the case in Canada, where most of the lumber harvested comes from Crown land. That is land owned by the federal or a provincial government. The way Canadian governments and American ones set the price they charge corporations to harvest this land is quite different and is the basis for the softwood lumber dispute. In the United States, logging rights are sold by using a competitive auction. In Canada stumpage fees are set by the government. These stumpage fees, which are based on a number of factors such as labor and transportation costs, tend to be significantly lower than the prices which come out of the U.S. auctions. The American government claims that these low prices constitute a subsidy to Canadian producers. The softwood lumber dispute stems from these prices and the actions the American government has taken in response.
The US is claiming these are subsidies, the NAFTA panel rules otherwise.
Are American companies somehow prevented from entering the Canadian market to take advantage of the lower stumpage fees?

The NAFTA panels says it. Since this is an agreement the US pushed for, desired, and supports fully, you can not simply say, "Hey, this doesn't work in our favour, so we're going to back out now." It can't, under law...and yet it does. The worse thing is...the ruling panel has no teeth, and we are so intertwined with the US economy, we can not even JOKE about pulling out of NAFTA as some sort of threat. Just look at what losing the US market did to our cattle industry. This should not be an economic war of escalation, where we try to 'up the ante' and think of new ways of ecomically fucking one another over.

NAFTA is not supposed to favour the US over Canada and Mexico...and yet too often it does. Play fair, or scrap the deal.

Fair enough, I agree that fair is fair and agreements should be honored. I was opposed to NAFTA, but lets move on.

Can you, however, see the position that we were put in in the 80's and the unfair nature of that business? One could easily hold that against Canada - I saw genuine and permanent harm done. In my view, Canada pulled the kind of stunt that the US is always being accused of. But let's move on, things change.

Free Trade was supposed to open markets, by going back on your word you've put the screws to us. How many rulings in Canada's favour by NAFTA and the WTO will it take for America to live up to its' word?

Frankly, it doesn't matter. I simply do not expect America to ever bargain in good faith - on any level. Whatsoever.

I'd expect more of an even chance bargaining with a pack of wild dogs than with you consummate bullshit artists and brigands.

It's so funny everytime America preaches Free trade then claims dumping, be that European steel, or Central American cat fish, Canadian trees or Japanese cars or Airbus. Anything that is a threat to American jobs...it's dumping.

I am not aware of any. Not that it can't have happened, but in over 30 years in forest management have I seen any.

Loggers buy stumpage competitively on the open market (whether from the public or private landowners), sell logs to mills who compete with one another for the product. It's as free-market as it can get.
Nor is this only about the NAFTA agreement. Even the Bretton Wood's love child, the World Trade Organisation has ruled against the US (for its own cotton subsidies (http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/wto/1813.html)) and yet the US fails to adhere to that ruling. And an even MORE recent ruling (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4001793.stm) against the US trying to ban internet gambling is causing the US to say they want to 'change the deal under which it joined the WTO' in the first place.

The US has the economic and military power to say no to whatever agreement that they enter into freely...but don't feel like adhering to. The moral authority is lacking. The US is not bargaining in good faith, and the world knows it. No wonder there is such a feeling of mistrust and discontent...when one country can rewrite the rules at whim, the supposed 'fairness and equality' espoused by US politicians is viewed with scorn. Who is surprised by this? I would think, however, that US citizens would be worried about the long term effects of this trust-breaking.

I think there are two distinct issues here. One, Canada is indeed 'dumping' softwood lumber at prices lower than a normal market can produce. Two, if the pricing is in accord with the NAFTA treaty then the 'dumping' is legal and should be permitted.

Are American companies somehow prevented from entering the Canadian market to take advantage of the lower stumpage fees?
Good question! I don't know...and nothing I've read mentions this aspect...I'm assuming that no, there is nothing preventing them from logging in Canada, since there is nothing preventing US companies from other primary resource extraction, but I can't say for sure. It doesn't seem to be part of any US argument on the issue, however.

Sin, I'm disappointed in you. You know there's much more important agreements that the US isn't complying with or hasn't complied with in the past. :rolleyes:

Nor is this only about the NAFTA agreement. Even the Bretton Wood's love child, the World Trade Organisation has ruled against the US (for its own cotton subsidies (http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/wto/1813.html)) and yet the US fails to adhere to that ruling. And an even MORE recent ruling (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4001793.stm) against the US trying to ban internet gambling is causing the US to say they want to 'change the deal under which it joined the WTO' in the first place.

The US has the economic and military power to say no to whatever agreement that they enter into freely...but don't feel like adhering to. The moral authority is lacking. The US is not bargaining in good faith, and the world knows it. No wonder there is such a feeling of mistrust and discontent...when one country can rewrite the rules at whim, the supposed 'fairness and equality' espoused by US politicians is viewed with scorn. Who is surprised by this? I would think, however, that US citizens would be worried about the long term effects of this trust-breaking.

As I said, I believe in making honest agreements and honoring commitments. I have done deals on a handshake involving millions of dollars of property. No argument.

But I'm surprised that you don't see the injustice in what began in the 80's, long before NAFTA, and this incident also engendered considerable distrust. I mentioned this because I thought people might be interested in some of the ancient history behind the dispute. I agree that the NAFTA agreement should be honored, but prior to NAFTA the Canadian's screwed us but good.

Regarding timber subsidies, I maintain that I have never seen any in the US of the sort that it is said the Canadians do. I see nothing but a free-market timber economy.

I need to leave, but will come back to this thread later.

Good question! I don't know...and nothing I've read mentions this aspect...I'm assuming that no, there is nothing preventing them from logging in Canada, since there is nothing preventing US companies from other primary resource extraction, but I can't say for sure. It doesn't seem to be part of any US argument on the issue, however.
My line of reasoning is: if the price is so good then it's not about the evil Americans running over their own treaties.

The problem shoud be: the evil Americans sucking all your natural resources dry. At least America would not be bitching about loss of jobs.

The transportation costs to American mills may be a problem; yet, I feel it is not that big of a deal.

So, how did this problem come about?
:confused:

The softwood lumber dispute ( http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/HET/Softwood/) between Canada and the US has been a long and bitter one between nations that have strong economic ties. In essence, the dispute is over US claims that Canada is unfairly subsidising it's softwood lumber industry, and this hurts the US's domestic industry. In response, the US government imposes anti-dumping duties on imports to the tune of about $5 billion dollars so far.

However, a recent decision by a NAFTA panel has ruled in Canada's favour, saying that there is no material threat to the US. Under this ruling, the US is required to pay back duties collected, and cease levying them. The US has refused ( http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2005/2005-08-12-04.asp), and stated that they will deal with the matter through negotiation, not litigation.

We have been negotiating for 20 years. When is the US going to live up to its commitments under a trade agreement that it was instrumental in creating? How can we, as a trading partner, trust a government that picks and chooses when to adhere to trade regulations?This buisness is a burning shame on the US. And utterly typical too.The Liberals should throw every tariff where it hurts the most at the US; this is not the time to take this kind of bullshit lying down.

Fair enough, I agree that fair is fair and agreements should be honored. I was opposed to NAFTA, but lets move on.

Can you, however, see the position that we were put in in the 80's and the unfair nature of that business? One could easily hold that against Canada - I saw genuine and permanent harm done. In my view, Canada pulled the kind of stunt that the US is always being accused of. But let's move on, things change.Let's not move on...let's stick with an important point you've raised. Is Canada just as guilty as the US of using subsidies other protectionist policies? I say, in many cases, yes. Our agriculture is heavily subsidied, as is in in the US. We have a long way to go until we've levelled the playing field.

However, NAFTA was an attempt to do that, at least in North America. And we signed on. (damn it!) Unfair practices before NAFTA don't really factor in. Now that there is a process in place to try to keep things more 'fair', the countries that signed this agreement need to abide by it. Or why bother making the agreement at all? Why not continue to disagree?

As well, it is the US, not Canada, who is (rightfully) seen in the world as the major proponent of free market liberalisation (or neo-liberalisation). The Bretton Woods institutions of the WTO and the IMF were spawned in the US, and promoted heavily from the US. The US has made itself the poster-child for the free market system, all the while playing the protectionist in real life. It's a rather schizophrenic identity, and no wonder it confuses people!

Canada uses protectionism. We're guilty too. But Canadians do not fully support the idea that the world will be better off by allowing full scale free market capitalism. We aren't the ones pushing this idea. We have our doubts, and our reservations. But we adhere to rulings against us, because we signed those agreements.

Sin, I'm disappointed in you. You know there's much more important agreements that the US isn't complying with or hasn't complied with in the past. :rolleyes:
So? This one is currently making the news rounds. And we all know there are others, and more important ones, but I thought I'd leave the outlining of them to my American/German hotbloods rather than do all the work myself!

I agree that the NAFTA agreement should be honored, but prior to NAFTA the Canadian's screwed us but good.


And again, prior to NAFTA, prior to the agreement regulating this kind of behaviour, this means squat. It's like saying...before cocaine was illegal, people sold it. Bad people! So if we sell it now, you should just think...people did that before too, and it was bad! Yeah! Bad! :D

So? This one is currently making the news rounds. And we all know there are others, and more important ones, but I thought I'd leave the outlining of them to my American/German hotbloods rather than do all the work myself! :D
Nah, I won't be threadjacking too much. I'll just mention that the US likes violating the UN charter. I find it slightly more deplorable that the US doesn't even bother committing to some agreements in the first place... :(

I'll be standing right alongside, offering whatever support I can, as unfortunately, I am not one moved to actual violence. I am however, moved to resistance.
That's fairly pathetic. If I were you I'd damn sure take up a fucking gun against American invaders.

:D
Nah, I won't be threadjacking too much. I'll just mention that the US likes violating the UN charter. I find it slightly more deplorable that the US doesn't even bother committing to some agreements in the first place... :(
Yup. I'd be proud to be the only other country other than Somalia who refuses to sign the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child. Hell, I'd make a bumper sticker to that effect and drive proudly around, displaying my support :p

That's fairly pathetic. If I were you I'd damn sure take up a fucking gun against American invaders.
Which is defence. Dobbs would be moved to resistence. Defence. Taking to the Canadian wildnerness to harry the invaders....pelting them with frozen Tim Horton's doughnuts :D

That's fairly pathetic. If I were you I'd damn sure take up a fucking gun against American invaders.
Let's hope things don't come to pass that an avowed pacifist is so reduced in competency that violence seems to be a viable refuge, then eh?

Yup. I'd be proud to be the only other country other than Somalia who refuses to sign the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child. Hell, I'd make a bumper sticker to that effect and drive proudly around, displaying my support :pThe reason why is the sad part... :(

Ah, things would be so much simpler if every nation followed a Libertarian ideology.
As far as I'm concerned, any "ruling" is a joke. I don't respect international law and consider negotiation, not arbitration, as the ONLY medium to deal with another nation.

Which is defence. Dobbs would be moved to resistence. Defence. Taking to the Canadian wildnerness to harry the invaders....pelting them with {snip}...
... warm & wild Canadian women?
:D

The reason why is the sad part... :(
You mean, these kinds of justifications (http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/turfur12-98.html) that shows that the UN Declaration of Human Rights and of the Rights of the Child are merely socialist tools for a global state? Don't tell me that's why they haven't signed...

...oh. It's about being able to execute children. Ah. Clearly an important right that must not be usurped by international agreements. :(

You mean, these kinds of justifications (http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/turfur12-98.html) that shows that the UN Declaration of Human Rights and of the Rights of the Child are merely socialist tools for a global state? Don't tell me that's why they haven't signed...

...oh. It's about being able to execute children. Ah. Clearly an important right that must not be usurped by international agreements. :(JSPR! :D
The last time I read something like this it was on the NPD's website. They bitched about how the UN charter gives everyone the right to occupy Germany! :p

Ah, things would be so much simpler if every nation followed a Libertarian ideology.
As far as I'm concerned, any "ruling" is a joke. I don't respect international law and consider negotiation, not arbitration, as the ONLY medium to deal with another nation.
It'd be nice, in that case, if your nation didn't draft agreements, and then enter into agreements that have build in arbitration processes. It would also be nice if your nation didn't use international law as a justification for shady actions...even while they engage in practices that are internationaly illegal.

I agree with you, for the most part...except that I feel arbitration should be the absolute last step, and should be adhered to if nations can not come to a negotiated solution.

JSPR! :DDon't try to impress me with your spurious French translations!

It'd be nice, in that case, if your nation didn't draft agreements, and then enter into agreements that have build in arbitration processes. It would also be nice if your nation didn't use international law as a justification for shady actions...even while they engage in practices that are internationaly illegal.

I agree with you, for the most part...except that I feel arbitration should be the absolute last step, and should be adhered to if nations can not come to a negotiated solution.
Aye, I have no idea why the morons on Capitol Hill built in any clause that includes arbitration, but, as far as I am concerned, the clause is null and void and the treaty should be renegotiated.
Unfortunatley, politicians are far too concerned with keeping the status quo...after all, the status quo is them controlling everything...

I know a trade dispute is much less exciting than a war, but I still think these problems (various treaty violations) need some attention too...they undermine the US economic position and the cornerstone of the 'ideals' they want to promote in the world. In my mind...and in the minds of many others...does this bother anyone in the US?

I know a trade dispute is much less exciting than a war, but I still think these problems (various treaty violations) need some attention too...they undermine the US economic position and the cornerstone of the 'ideals' they want to promote in the world. In my mind...and in the minds of many others...does this bother anyone in the US?
Apparently not.








No big surprise.

Don't try to impress me with your spurious French translations!It's Frangland's colleague's translation. Not mine :p

AMERKKKA is EVIL!!!

http://photos1.blogger.com/img/199/1684/320/September%2011.%202001.jpg

http://americasoutback.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/bertmed.JPG

I know a trade dispute is much less exciting than a war, but I still think these problems (various treaty violations) need some attention too...they undermine the US economic position and the cornerstone of the 'ideals' they want to promote in the world. In my mind...and in the minds of many others...does this bother anyone in the US?

If it works in their favour, why would they let it bother them? :rolleyes:

If it works in their favour, why would they let it bother them? :rolleyes:
Yes, consciences are for other countries.