Because “allies” don’t spy on each other, right? I reject, unconditionally, the idea of having an alliance with another nation that has no date of expiration. I would even state a specific maximum amount of time for said alliance. I would even reject the concept of “alliances” in the first place. George Washington had it right, and every problem of the last century came from not following his advice. But that’s another story and not directly related to the thread.
Every problem of the entire century came from not following the advice of a dead slave owner? Such...interesting...opinions you hold.
America shouldn’t stand in the way of the free market. Government’s role shouldn’t be to stop failing companies from takeover.
If there’s an actual national security threat that takes presidency over laissez faire.
If the world believes the intelligence agencies about Russian interference (without evidence) then I see no reason why they shouldn’t believe these same agencies about China.
Okay I'll be the first and most likely only one to admit that I don't know enough about this to have an opinion on this story.
You are not alone!!! I did not comment so far because I am in the same boat as you. There could be another category of people (which I think is the majority), who know some amount of information but not the full picture, hence unable to make up their mind one way or other.
America shouldn’t stand in the way of the free market. Government’s role shouldn’t be to stop failing companies from takeover.
If there’s an actual national security threat that takes presidency over laissez faire.
If the world believes the intelligence agencies about Russian interference (without evidence) then I see no reason why they shouldn’t believe these same agencies about China.
Broadcom are based in Singapore, not China. Singapore is one of the most staunchly capitalist countries in Asia.
As much as I can't stand the monkeys running Qualcomm, I'm not a fan of selling out to overseas firms that have a higher likelihood of being in the cahoots with countries like China. I hope Intel buys QC, fires all of management, and makes some great chips.
What makes you think Singapore is “in cahoots” with China?
What advice was that? As much history as I've read I don't think I'm familiar with your reference.
His farewell address, specifically. Excerpts follow.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence–I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens–the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.
Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests. The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.
What advice was that? As much history as I've read I don't think I'm familiar with your reference.
His farewell address, specifically. Excerpts follow.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence–I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens–the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.
Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests. The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.
Well, it was a simple opinion, not an attempt to make anyone stop (or start) believing anything.
Here is one of the quotes:
"Given well-known U.S. national security concerns about Huawei and other Chinese telecommunications companies, a shift to Chinese dominance in 5G would have substantial negative national security consequences for the United States," CFIUS said in a letter dated March 5."
Now there is not even any attempt to demonstrate anything. The simple 'concerns' are enough to justify the ban.
As for Chinese dominance of 5G, how does the US plan to stop them being key players at such a late stage? If the 'threat' were real, just ban the Chinese communications companies from doing business on US soil. Surely, with national security at stake, that is what should be done.
Would it actually stop any suspect behaviour? Nope, because the likes of Huawei are going to be handling a lot of communications traffic all over the world and inevitably that will include data to and from the US.
How will the US government stop Qualcomm being broken up and sold off to the highest bidder when they eventually file for bankruptcy? I think a takeover by a former US company (one that was willing to redomicile at that) was the much preferred option for "national security" since that was the argument all along.
Here's one way:
The Feds kept Lockheed Aircraft in business for years because of their talent and tech. At one time Lockheed had more satellites in the sky than everyone else combined; the aerospace, shipbuilding, Skunkworks, missiles, aircraft the the U2, Subchasers, etc.
The easiest way is for the Feds to keep issuing cost plus contracts to keep the company going.
Lockheed was merged with Martin another US company
My recollection was that Lockheed was having significant problems with the C-5A, and Cheyenne Helicopter, programs, and the U.S. Government gave them $250m in loan guarantees.
tallest skil said: His farewell address, specifically. Excerpts follow.
Interesting. I don't think I've read that before. That does help to explain the resistance to the US entering WWI and WWII.
We came out of WWII a wealthy superpower, with 53% of the world's production, and a thirst for Oil and Natural Resources, but we entered WWII officially because Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Three days later, Germany declared war on the U.S. I should mention that neither Japan nor Germany had any native oil resources.
We built 303,000 aircraft during WWII, so were well on our way to building more for the Cold War that followed.
We still benefit from the technological lead that we got after WWII, but it began to wane some time ago. Read "The Rise and Fall of Great Powers" by Paul Kennedy for more on the lifespan of nations.
History will look back on the US entry into the world wars as the two worst decisions ever made by this country. To say more would take the discussion totally off the rails.
What advice was that? As much history as I've read I don't think I'm familiar with your reference.
His farewell address, specifically. Excerpts follow.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence–I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens–the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.
Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests. The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.
I don't need to rebut -- you've proposed every single problem of the last 100 years is the fault of not "following his advice", despite him not having advice for many of the problems we've had in the past century. You've presented nothing to rebut.
Comments
Yes. Your rebuttal is where?
Holy shit, cry so much more. You’re neurologically incapable of replying without using fallacies.
That’s cute.
His farewell address, specifically. Excerpts follow.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence–I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens–the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.
Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests. The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.
Here is one of the quotes:
"Given well-known U.S. national security concerns about Huawei and other Chinese telecommunications companies, a shift to Chinese dominance in 5G would have substantial negative national security consequences for the United States," CFIUS said in a letter dated March 5."
Now there is not even any attempt to demonstrate anything. The simple 'concerns' are enough to justify the ban.
As for Chinese dominance of 5G, how does the US plan to stop them being key players at such a late stage? If the 'threat' were real, just ban the Chinese communications companies from doing business on US soil. Surely, with national security at stake, that is what should be done.
Would it actually stop any suspect behaviour? Nope, because the likes of Huawei are going to be handling a lot of communications traffic all over the world and inevitably that will include data to and from the US.
That does help to explain the resistance to the US entering WWI and WWII.
At this point, qcom seems more of a financial sector company than a tech company. They make most of their money off old patents, not tech innovation.
We built 303,000 aircraft during WWII, so were well on our way to building more for the Cold War that followed.
We still benefit from the technological lead that we got after WWII, but it began to wane some time ago. Read "The Rise and Fall of Great Powers" by Paul Kennedy for more on the lifespan of nations.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-13/how-china-s-huawei-killed-117-billion-broadcom-deal-quicktake