http://www.reel.com/movie.asp?MID=134102&buy=open&Tab=reviews&CID=13#tabs

The above link is to a review of "No Man's Land," the apparently brilliant new movie about the war in Yugoslavia.

I get a strange sense of cognitive dissonance reading it. Here's another perceptive filmmaker with a "brilliant" or "scathing" or "uncompromising" (pick your favorite critic buzzword) look at the horror of war, the insanity of man, the folly of blah blah blah... and I'm reading it and I'm going yeah, yeah, war is insane, yeah, the folly, yeah what a crazy stupid species we are! And I'm sure the movie *is* brilliant and scathing and uncompromising. But meanwhile we're in the midst of our own war in Afghanistan and we're bombing people and killing people and all the rest of it -- and I suppose we *should* be, since Al Queda had no qualms about bombing and killing us. And you know that in 5 years or 10 years or 20 years someone will make another "brilliant" and "scathing" and "uncompromising" movie about the horrors of *that* particular war, and the madness of man, and the folly of our species, and on and on and on. But really why bother? We've been telling ourselves that humanity is nuts for millennia; it doesn't make us a jot less so. It just makes lucrative careers for brilliant and scathing and uncompromising artists who point out the mind-bogglingly obvious fact that humans like to kill each other.

Hell, I don't know, maybe we should just stop making the movies... it would let us devote more of our attention to killing each other... brilliantly, scathingly, and uncompromisingly, of course.

Is there a War or "Police Action" that we haven't done a movie about? We've seen the American Revolution, Civil War, WW I, WW II, Korea, Vietnam, The Gulf War, Bosnia/Yugoslavia, the special forces action in Somalia, even Guam for Christ's sake.

Oh, wait, I don't think there is one about the little raid in Panama, is there? That was more of a personal grudge of Bush against Noriega, but there was still enough troops to warrant a movie.

Clint Eastwood did one about Grenada, or one that included Grenada. What was it called? Hmmm... Heartbreak Ridge!

-Andrew

>I'm sure the movie *is* brilliant and scathing and uncompromising.

It is.

"I'm sure the movie *is* brilliant and scathing and uncompromising."

It's not brilliant, but it's good. Some of the stereotypes (especially the British UN commander) are overdone and don't fit the tone of the rest of the film.

I saw this one in Toronto with Ron and Stefan and Erik -- I think we all liked it, or at least all didn't hate. Maybe I'm misremembering.

I actually want to see it quite a lot, Desslock; but I will have to restrain myself from nodding sagely as I sit in the theater, and mumbling to myself homilies about man's inhumanity to man.

>I saw this one in Toronto with Ron and Stefan and Erik -- I think we all liked it, or at least all didn't hate. Maybe I'm misremembering

As I recall, I think I liked it quite a bit more than you guys did. It was definitely my favourite of the 21 films I saw at the Festival. Even better than Enigma!

Stefan

"Gallipoli" was on TV yesterday. Definitely reminded me of today's climate. Australia is shown as boyant, confident, treating the war to come as an adventure they can participate in to destroy some "evildoers" their newspapers cast as baby-eaters and worse. The young men treat it as a way to prove their manhood.

And then they get put on the line, where waves of them are sent at machine gun emplacements.

Sort of puts the whole "boy isn't it neat how this war has brought the country together" and "boy I feel patriotic when we're kicking ass" sentiments in perspective of the utterly horrifying facts of what is actually going down. I've seen TV commentators bragging and laughing about how we've killed the wives and small children of more than one top Taliban honcho. It makes me sick.

Anyone who says "collateral damage is an unfortunate necessity" needs to take some serious time out to consider how they would react if their own family was treated as "collateral damage" and an "unfortunate" group of insects to step on, on the way to star-spangled VICTORY.

>I've seen TV commentators bragging and laughing about how we've killed the wives and small children of more than one top Taliban honcho.

I don't believe you. When and where.

Okay, I was on acid.

>Okay, I was on acid

Fair enough. I think Gallipoli is an outstanding movie, by the way.

"collateral damage is an unfortunate necessity" -- I'm not sure I agree with this statement.

However, I will agree that war is hell. Unfortunately, war is also necessary at times. We can't all hang out by the campfire singing Kumbaya hoping all the "world's bad people" will join us in one big lovefest.

Now now, Hitler would have stopped his aggression if only somebody had sat down next to him, put their arm around him, and listen to his complaints about a neglected childhood.

"Now now, Hitler would have stopped his aggression"

Which countries has the Taliban invaded?

(Note: extra points given if the person answering this question actually recognizes that Bin Laden is Saudi Arabian -- not Afghan -- and not a member of the Taliban).

"which countries has the Taliban invaded?"

Afghanistan.
And what exactly are you doing awarding extra points for common knowledge there buddy?

Relax Sinner, I wasn't comparing the Taliban to Hitler. I was just making a general crack about the Kumbaya thing, i.e. sometimes war is necessary. Whether it is necessary in this instance, and whether the Taliban are the people we should be bombing, and whether there is justification for the inevitable civilian casualties inflicted on the hapless Afghanis who of course had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11, is frankly a matter that is beyond my expertise to comment on with much authority. Go ask the McLaughlin Group what they think.

>(Note: extra points given if the person answering this question actually recognizes that Bin Laden is Saudi Arabian -- not Afghan -- and not a member of the Taliban).

Oh get over yourself. Anyone who watches even American TV news knows that much.

If the Taliban have "invaded" Afghanistan, I guess I'd have to say that the unelected Bush administration "invaded" the U.S.

Of course those facts I mentioned are "common knowledge." Yet the administration purposefully mixes Bin Laden and the Taliban up as one amalgamation of evildoers. We must get the Taliban because they attacked our buildings! Except that they didn't attack our buildings. Bin Laden is not Taliban.

Look, the line of logic is quite clear as you well know. The Taliban harbored Bin Laden. Bin Laden is believed (based on evidence that has not altogether been shown to the masses, alas) to have masterminded and/or financed the 9/11 attacks. The U.S. issued an ultimatum to the Taliban to give up Bin Laden, the Taliban said no, and the U.S. cooperated with the Northern Alliance in order to overthrow the Taliban and capture Bin Laden. Setting aside the more difficult question of whether this course of action is the correct one for the U.S. to take, neither you, nor I, nor anybody else who has switched on CNN in the past 3 months, is ignorant of these basic facts, unless they're really stupid.

Anyone who doesn't know what's going on hasn't been paying attention, and it's not the Bush Administration's job to recapitulate the last 3 months' course of events for the ignorant. I am not aware of any comments by Fleischer or Powell or Cheney which deliberately distort the state of things, although I may have missed them. As for what Bush himself says, it's all so psychedelic that I just tune him out.

When you get close to making a point, let me know.

Two whole paragraphs to debunk a throwaway comment about recognizing Bin Laden's ancestry when Afghan civilians, Red Cross workers, Northern Alliance leaders and even US miltary troops are being bombed by our own miltary... Jesus Fucking Christ.

The Taliban was basically a Pakistan-supported puppet government, staffed by out-of-country arab muslims. Afghanistan certainly didn't "choose" or "elect" them in any meaningful sense.

Not to mention the more recent indications that Al Quaida (sp? whatever) propped up and financed the Taliban. Sources are now saying that the two were entertwined even more than we thought previously.

Sinner seems to have missed the news cycle that revealed that had Gore gotten his full undervote recount (in other words had the Supremes not intervened), Bush would have won Florida anyway (this from the liberal leaning Slate). Gore might have won if the overvotes were looked at, but at no point did Gore ever ask for that.

I'm a Democrat and not a Bush fan, but he is our elected president.

"The Taliban was basically a Pakistan-supported puppet government"

And Pakistan is a US-supported puppet government that no one elected. We repay Pakistan for supporting the Taliban by making them allies, giving them money.

Perhaps you can see how this makes Bush's cheap lines about "evildoers" irrelevant. We have supported the Taliban every step of the way; now we bomb their civilians because they weren't strong enough to overthrow a government that we armed?

Makes perfect sense.

>When you get close to making a point, let me know.

>Two whole paragraphs to debunk a throwaway comment about recognizing Bin Laden's ancestry when Afghan civilians, Red Cross workers, Northern Alliance leaders and even US miltary troops are being bombed by our own miltary... Jesus Fucking Christ.

To start with, I made a "throwaway comment" about Hitler and YOU read a bunch of baloney into it that I never said in the first place, which set the ball rolling.

My *point*, which you find so elusive, is that only a moron would be ignorant of the basic facts in the matter (i.e. that Bin Laden is not an Afghan -- gee, what a deep insight!), so by claiming the news/media/administration/whoever is deliberately conflating the Taliban with Bin Laden, or that anybody who pays attention actually *believes* that, you are basically erecting a strawman of ignorant jingoistic Americans in order to make yourself appear smart.

Now you will either roll your eyes and get sarcastic, or accuse me of overreacting and blowing things out of proportion. Well, maybe I am; but in your last post you basically insulted me, and I don't take kindly to that. It's not on me if this conversation turns from a serious discussion into a flamewar, pal.

Hi, Bub.

Guess you haven't been reading the same "Slate" I have. Please see the articles below that state exactly the opposite of what you claim:

http://slate.msn.com//?id=2058793
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2058603

The first article is the definitive one, so feel free to ignore the second one. Both argue that Gore won; the first one offers written proof in the form of FAXes to recount centers that Florida Justice Terry Lewis was determined to count the overvotes, because to ignore them would violate state law.

So who would have made a better president - Bush or Gore ?

No matter who is president they are only as strong as their advisors. Although I would argue that since Sept 11 Bush has become a far better president and suffers less of the "That's My Bush!" syndrome.

"in your last post you basically insulted me, It's not on me if this conversation turns from a serious discussion into a flamewar, pal."

Please identify the insult I made. At worst I can detect only a suggestion that you are obsessed with something I find trivial. On your part, you began your entire reaction to my thoughts with "get over yourself," a suggestion that I am a deluded egomaniac.

Since it's such a harmless comment, I guess I'll duplicate it: Get over yourself!

And there have been numerous other media recounts stating that Bush would have won a recount. Bottom line is, it doesn't matter. Bush is president, for better or for doofus. Best we can do is wait until 2004 and elect his Democratic opponent.

We actually never financed Pakistan until just recently. As a matter of fact, when the current Pakistan government took control, we cut off most trade and imposed sanctions against them. We "paid" the current government, by lifting said sanctions, when they agreed (out of fear of being called terrorist supporters, in my opinion) to allow the U.S. to use Pakistani airspace and land bases.

Now, getting all that out of the way, I think we are more than justified bombing the bejesus out of the Taliban. They are aiding and abetting a criminal suspect who more than once said he is going to keep on committing crimes until one day he has his son kill him so he won't be captured by a foreign government. In the U.S., being an accessory to a crime carries the same penalty as committing the crime itself. So, by admitting they have BinLaden "in a safe place", saying they control all his communicatons (meaning the only way he sends orders is through the Taliban), and refusing to turn him over, they brought it all down on themselves.

Everyone not realize that all the Taliban had to do to avoid all this was turn over BinLaden and his top teir of advisors? The U.S. could not do what it is doing without international support, and the support for any military action would ahve been withdrawn the second our stated goal of capturing BinLaden and his advisors was completed.

I guess Afghanistan got a bit too used to the U.S. backing down every time we demanded BinLaden be turned over. The Clinton administration was brokering a deal with the Taliban to turn him over, but they backed out at the last minute. Spose they just didn't realize that when we have evidence against someone who ordered and financed the destruction of a national icon and the deaths of almost 4,000 people, that the U.S. government wouldn't back down this time.

Whew, getting preechy, sorry

>"in your last post you basically insulted me, It's not on me if this conversation turns from a serious discussion into a flamewar, pal."

>Please identify the insult I made.

"When you get close to making a point, let me know." and "Two whole paragraphs to debunk a throwaway comment about recognizing Bin Laden's ancestry when Afghan civilians, Red Cross workers, Northern Alliance leaders and even US miltary troops are being bombed by our own miltary... Jesus Fucking Christ."

*disclaimer*

You are once again going to accuse me of nitpicking, but I have to in order to answer your charges. So bear with me.

Your comment about my "not making a point" was certainly ruder than it needed to be, especially as I feel my point was clear. Closing the sentence with "Jesus Fucking Christ" implies exasperation at how absurd I'm being, when I don't think my initial comments -- the gist of which was that you were building a strawman in accusing people of conflating the Taliban with Bin Laden -- were either absurd or off the mark. Of course we've entered the land of the absurd by now, but as long as you keep picking my nits, I'll pick yours.

Really I was talking about the lump-sum attitude of that post, which was scornful and dismissive and rude. That is why I qualified my claim that you insulted me with "basically." The tone was the most insulting thing about it.

>At worst I can detect only a suggestion that you are obsessed with something I find trivial.

But that "suggestion" is in fact insulting, because by it you demean me and imply that you are somehow above it all. I am "obsessed" only with getting facts straight. You may find it trivial that you unfairly characterized me as a) equating the Taliban with Hitler, and presumably b) being unaware that Bin Laden was not Afghan (not directly but by implication), but I don't find it trivial. It's basically a veiled way of calling me ignorant -- all based on things I never actually said. I also think it's rather bad form for you to throw out disparaging comments and then retreat behind a claim that it was just "throwaway" and anyone who takes umbrage, or tries to respond at any length, is "obsessing."

>On your part, you began your entire reaction to my thoughts with "get over yourself," a suggestion that I am a deluded egomaniac.

Fair enough, and I apologize.

>Since it's such a harmless comment, I guess I'll duplicate it: Get over yourself!

Ok, I deserved that.

Wow, I can't remember the last time I had so much fun splitting hairs.

Hi Sinner,
both the Slate *editorials* you linked hinge regard the overvote factor. Which Gore never asked for. In the recounts Gore DID ask for (but were blocked by the Supreme court), he lost. Claiming Bush is illegitimate based on this is just silly. As illegitimate as the Taliban, well, that's just outrageous.

Or I could have just cut and pasted my own post!

"Sinner seems to have missed the news cycle that revealed that had Gore gotten his full undervote recount (in other words had the Supremes not intervened), Bush would have won Florida anyway (this from the liberal leaning Slate). Gore might have won if the overvotes were looked at, but at no point did Gore ever ask for that."

-Andrew

'"The Taliban was basically a Pakistan-supported puppet government"

And Pakistan is a US-supported puppet government that no one elected. We repay Pakistan for supporting the Taliban by making them allies, giving them money.

Perhaps you can see how this makes Bush's cheap lines about "evildoers" irrelevant. We have supported the Taliban every step of the way; now we bomb their civilians because they weren't strong enough to overthrow a government that we armed?

Makes perfect sense.'

Here's a quick timeline:

1979-1989: US supports every mujiheddin under the sun in Afghanistan against the Soviet invasion with arms, cash, and tactical support. The Soviets pull out, and official US interest disappears.

1990-1999: Iranian and Pakistani proxy war. The Pakistani ISI-backed Taliban take over the country. Increased tensions with Iran as a result of this.

1999: UN Security Council Resolution 1267 is adopted; sanctions against the Taliban on grounds that they offered sanctuary to Osama bin Ladin. The intelligence consensus is apparently that Osama took over supporting the Taliban from the Pakistani ISI at this point.

2000: UN Security Council Resolution 1333 is adopted; additional sanctions against the Taliban for their continuing support of terrorism and cultivation of narcotics.

2001: WTC destroyed. US engages in standard Great Power bribery (loan packages, dropping of sanctions, etc.) to get Pakistani support for military intervention.

The suggestion that supported the Taliban at any point after the early 1980s is complete horseshit. As for US support of Pakistan, the US was Pakistan-friendly and aligned in the 1980s; since the fall of the USSR and India's 1990s abandonment of socialist planning, US interest has moved towards India instead.

The US imposed a lot worse sanctions on Pakistan than it did India after the two engaged in 1998 nuclear tests, if I remember correctly; Musharraf's military 1999 military coup completely iced over relations.

Maybe I missed this "support of the Taliban every step of the way?" Domestic oil companies tried to lean on the US government for more Taliban friendly relations pre-September 11th, betting they could bring enough stability to the area for a Caspian Sea-Afghanistan-Iran pipeline, but they weren't getting anywhere.

In a way, though, does it matter whether Gore asked for it? I mean, shouldn't it be the voters, not the candidates, who are demanding the fullest possible recount?

For my part I consider the Florida election a colossal clusterfuck that says more about our screwed up voting system than anything else. We'll never know for sure who *really* won... I actually think a more important question is whether the Supreme Court were justified in stopping the recount. The assertion that the recount *would have* given the state to Bush, in no way absolves the Supreme Court, IMHO.

'Which Gore never asked for. In the recounts Gore DID ask for (but were blocked by the Supreme court), he lost. Claiming Bush is illegitimate based on this is just silly. As illegitimate as the Taliban, well, that's just outrageous.'

Sure, but if Bush had gotten the recount *he* wanted as a counteroffer, Gore would have won, so the irony factor goes both ways. The clearest thing I can think of is a "what would have happened if the SC hadn't stopped the recount" scenario, which Mickey Kaus makes a pretty convincing case that Gore would have barely won, if completed in time. As it is, I think it would have ended up in the House, and Bush would still president.

It's interesting to note that the "deadline" Harris and the GOP insisted on was no such thing; FL could have constitutionally submitted results the day before the Senate reads the votes.

As it is, in a ideal error-free vote counting universe, Gore would have won. In reality, it was close enough that the only thing that angers me is side issues (complete GOP dishonesty about the entire process, the SC stepping in with a ludicrous antidemocratic and irrational decision, the media's complete inability to get the analysis of all this right).

"In reality, it was close enough that the only thing that angers me is side issues (complete GOP dishonesty about the entire process, the SC stepping in with a ludicrous antidemocratic and irrational decision, the media's complete inability to get the analysis of all this right)."

I pretty much agree with McCullough on this. If Bush had won without trying to circumvent democracy at every turn I would have been annoyed, but I wouldn't have this sense of massive betrayal I feel after watching this travesty of a "states' rights" Supreme Court turn on a dime and get rewarded for their efforts by prominent Bush administration appointments for Scalia's son and Rhenquist's daughter. Not to mention the heavily distorted reportage which resembled a noisy GOP chatroom more than any work of journalism.

Vaguely related: the same people talking about how bad the Afghanistan war is because it kills innocents, starves children, etc., etc,. are the same who complain that sanctions aginst Iraq are bad for pretty much the same reason.

However, they're also one and the same the anti-globalization/trade people, right? Shouldn't stopping Iraq from importing filthy corporate western goods *improve* Iraq?

I think that's a pretty broad generalization of the anti-globalization movement. Doesn't it have more to do with perceived corruption in the IMF and the World Bank, and how these are perpetuating economic inequality in 3rd world nations?

They dance around the issue endlessly, as it's pretty unfashionable to admit, but the hardcore movement basically advocates the elimination of international trade; some of them because they think it makes the 3rd world poor, some because they think it makes the first world poor, and some because they think it redistributes money from the poor to the rich.

There's a rational component out there who make a perfectly good case against some of the IMF and World Bank's silly austerity-capital policies, but they're mostly economists, not the kids in the streets. Ask an average WTO protestor what they're complaining about, and you'll probably here something about that anti-McDonald's French guy, or the evils of Coke.

http://www.tompaine.com/opinion/2001/04/19/index.html

They point still stands. I have no idea how you can claim that a lack of trade is bad for Iraq and good for everywhere else.

But who would claim that a lack of trade in, say, medical supplies and other basic needs -- which as I understand it is a chief criticism of sanctions against Iraq, i.e. they have led indirectly to the deaths of thousands of civilians -- is a good thing (unto itself, as opposed to whatever diplomatic reasons drive the sanctions)? Surely even the most strident anti-globalist wouldn't want to deny, say, penicillin to children.

Why not? Why can't they produce it locally behind tariff protection instead of having the rich first world leech off their cash for it?

I don't think anyone's actually said this, but it's just as logical as, say, protecting the market for telephone components. The normal argument, I think, is that the first world corporations vassalize the country into a state of being unable to produce these things for itself.

Mostly, I guess the contradiction is "some trade is good" for Iraq while "all trade is bad" for everywhere else. You never here about how some trade is good for other areas, or on a further tangent, how they're going to pay for these first-world medical imports if they don't have an export industry.

"Vaguely related: the same people talking about how bad the Afghanistan war is because it kills innocents, starves children, etc., etc,. are the same who complain that sanctions aginst Iraq are bad for pretty much the same reason.

However, they're also one and the same the anti-globalization/trade people, right? Shouldn't stopping Iraq from importing filthy corporate western goods *improve* Iraq?"

--

Sorry to be blunt, but this is nonsense. The WTO and punitive sanctions against Iraq that block medical supplies are both about powerful first world nations wreaking havoc on the poor.

The WTO has the power to levy fines and other penalties on nations whose environmental and labor laws are found inconvenient to multinational corporations who want to produce and sell their goods in the cheapest ways possible, with disregard for local laws and human rights. I personally don't know any anti-WTO folks who believe that western products are evil, only the labor and environmental practices that go into producing a certain subset of them.

See? This is the kind of poking-with-a-stick reaction I was trying to get.

'The WTO has the power to levy fines and other penalties on nations whose environmental and labor laws are found inconvenient to multinational corporations who want to produce and sell their goods in the cheapest ways possible, with disregard for local laws and human rights.'

Rather than argue with this assertion: fine, countries can withdraw from the WTO, right?

'I personally don't know any anti-WTO folks who believe that western products are evil, only the labor and environmental practices that go into producing a certain subset of them.'

I should have said "products produced by evil western corporations." No one actually thinks products are evil.

Well, but if the non-evil products are (for instance) being produced by underpaid child laborers using work practices that would be illegal in first-world countries, and if the primary beneficiaries of these practices are the multinational corporations that get cheap labor, and the first-world consumers (like me) who get cheap Nike shoes, then I think there is a legitimate critique there. After all, products don't exist in a vacuum; the process that created them can have human-rights consequences. (I am dealing in generalities here because I don't know specifics.)

"fine, countries can withdraw from the WTO, right?"

Countries are not homogenous entities. In a country such as ours, corps can buy a nation's way into the WTO through campaign contributions to the politicians in power. This puts one more massive obstacle in front of grass roots environmental and labor movements inside a nation. And that, in my opinion, is a bad thing.

So, your problem is with corporations controlling the political process, not with the WTO. What good is repealing the WTO going to do? The corporations will just slap something else on through the politicians they own, right? Seriously, shouldn't you logically be working for socialist revolution or something?

'Well, but if the non-evil products are (for instance) being produced by underpaid child laborers using work practices that would be illegal in first-world countries, and if the primary beneficiaries of these practices are the multinational corporations that get cheap labor, and the first-world consumers (like me) who get cheap Nike shoes, then I think there is a legitimate critique there. After all, products don't exist in a vacuum; the process that created them can have human-rights consequences. (I am dealing in generalities here because I don't know specifics.)'

Industrial-era England had child labor, and it wasn't really considered that shocking at the time. Prisoner slave labor is something virtually the entire planet agrees on, so China raises all sorts of issues, but a childhood free of work is something recently invented by the west. However, you can amusingly make a case that the US farming out prisoners at below-market wage ti factories, telling them they'll get more good behavior credit for parole, is technically about the same.

It's hard to imagine that the children are "underpaid", either, as the only way to get them off the substinence farms and into the factories is to pay more than farming does. Eventually the wage-pressure/productivity spiral drives the process along enough that the country develops from Angola-level poverty into Indonesia, and then goes on to the income levels of Korea or Tiawan. If those kids aren't in the factory, they'd be working nearly as much at home.

It's not like those "unsafe and illegal" 3rd world practices were illegal in the US at a comparable point, either. Safety is something the rich can afford; if the 3rd world is forced to have 1st world safety and pollution standards, then they won't be probably able to produce goods cheap enough to export, and they'll still be substitence farming in 50 years.

>It's not like those "unsafe and illegal" 3rd world practices were illegal in the US at a comparable point, either. Safety is something the rich can afford; if the 3rd world is forced to have 1st world safety and pollution standards, then they won't be probably able to produce goods cheap enough to export, and they'll still be substitence farming in 50 years.

That's a rather pessimistic conclusion, though, isn't it? That the rest of the world must go through all the missteps of the past in order to catch up? Isn't it possible, in theory, that they could learn from our mistakes? And is it right that first world corporations, based in countries that have long since abolished such excesses, should profit from them?

Also keep in mind that when the Industrial Revolution began 200 years ago, things like the United Nations, and universal declarations of human rights, did not exist. The zeitgeist has changed; one can't entirely turn a blind eye to that.

"Safety is something the rich can afford; if the 3rd world is forced to have 1st world safety and pollution standards, then they won't be probably able to produce goods cheap enough to export, and they'll still be substitence farming in 50 years."

Sounds like you're reaching... When I go to Canada, my dollar as an American worker is worth a lot more. Canadian products are cheaper for me as an American, yet their labor standards are on a first world level.

There are other factors in prices of products besides those inconvenient safety concerns you seem to deem only good enough for you, your family and your first world friends. Cost of living is a major factor -- costs like factory rental space are still going to be higher in the first world if those sneaker slaves are given human respect.

'the rest of the world must go through all the missteps of the past in order to catch up? Isn't it possible, in theory, that they could learn from our mistakes?'

Sure, but the solutions still cost money, and when you compare the cost to the labor rate, it's just not economical. One of the more common proposals is that third-world factories have first world pollution controls; however, those controls will probably cost more than the factory's labor does. Unless the first world comes up with some regime where we basically give them stuff like this for free, third world factory goods will be too expensive to compete against that of the first world. They certainly can't compete on quality; price is all they have.

'Sounds like you're reaching... When I go to Canada, my dollar as an American worker is worth a lot more. Canadian products are cheaper for me as an American, yet their labor standards are on a first world level. '

Huh? What does this have to do with competition between comparable first and third world industries? You can buy more in Canada because the demand for US goods in Canada is higher than the demand for Canadian goods in the US.

'There are other factors in prices of products besides those inconvenient safety concerns you seem to deem only good enough for you, your family and your first world friends. Cost of living is a major factor -- costs like factory rental space are still going to be higher in the first world if those sneaker slaves are given human respect.'

The third world's big exports are entirely in labor-intensive industries, like shoe manufacture, or toy trinkets, or radios, or the like. This kind of implies that land prices aren't the issue; land is capital, and very little capital-intensive industries are located in the third world.

http://www.sunsonline.org/trade/areas/industry/11080089.htm

I'm not opposed to safety and anti-pollution, I just think there's no way to do it profitably without some ludicrously unpopular scheme of technology transfer, like US plastic plants shipping pollution controls for free to their competitors. If someone has evidence otherwise, I'm all for it. Look at Taiwan: they certainly didn't use first world standards until recently, when they've reached near-first world income levels.

That manufacturing labor unions, protectionist textile-manufacturing corporations, and the like are those making the most vocal compliants about third world production standards is circumstancial evidence as to what's really going on. They're the ones who will lose the most from third world exports, and they're exploiting natural guilt over some poor person somewhere making your shoes. That trade would be to the benefit of everyone involved but the domestic textile producers isn't mentioned.

Here's an article detailing when some first-world imposed safety standards are reasonable, and some aren't.

http://www.pkarchive.org/trade/berries.html

Labor competitiveness thing:

http://www.pkarchive.org/trade/smokey.htm