The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum
=> Re: Guys....need your opinions
| Re: Guys....need your opinions |
|
Posted by
Tiglath
(Guest)
- Wednesday, November 1 2006, 12:59:32 (CET) from 220.237.181.94 - c220-237-181-94.eburwd3.vic.optusnet.com.au  Australia -  Windows XP -  Internet ExplorerWebsite: Website title: |
>..there are people who need to make lots of money..they may start out honestly enough...maybe build a lumber mill for the town`s needs...but they need to make more and soon all the houses have been built and the forest is gone..now what? Follow that out for a couple of hundred years and you have corporations that are no longer family owned, straining to make a buck any way they can...since they also carry more clout with politicians, because we allow it....it wouldn`t take long before they can have their way with us, our bodies, children, air, water and money...even to the point of starting wars or allowing health problems to escalte into near diasters..why not? Why should they stop? But isn't the entire concept to allow corporations to influence government as undemocratic as it can get? Isn't Socialism, the rule of the people, a definition of democracy itself? Why haven't they directly targeted the companies that sponsor the US government policies instead of protesting to that son of a Bush? Allow me to present an example of a way in which we could tackle this by focusing on the US's horrendous foreign policy. Strategicaly we'd target the biggest corporate sponsor of the Bush administration, THAT had made the most profit from the current US wars. Although the biggest Weapons manufacturer is Lockheed Martin we should instead target the second most prolific weapons manufacturer. That target would be Boeing as 45.6% of its 2002 profit came from the public and hence is more susceptible to economic protest rather than Lockheed Martin who only has 5.4% of its 2002 profits coming from the public. In order to target Boeing you'd need to target the following 3 areas: a. Consumers - through a boycot of their products. b. Investors - through an awareness and letter writing campaign. c. Workers - through Unions who would internaly slow down production, boycot all supplies. The campaign would require extensive grass roots support and media savvy but if launched for an extended period of time, and monitored through the company'sshare price, you would eventually force the company to cut its corporate sponsorship of the US government and stop influencing its decisions to invade other sovereign nations. In this way we could force one of the weapons manufacturers to stop buying influence in the US government and then move onto the next biggest weapons manufacturer. What do you guys think of these tactics? Are they simply to strong and can evolve by renaming and rebranding or dividing their company into smaller pieces? --------------------- |
The full topic:
|
|
Content-length: 2929 Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, application/vnd.ms-excel, application/vnd.ms-powerpoint, applicatio... Accept-encoding: gzip, deflate Accept-language: en-au Cache-control: no-cache Connection: Keep-Alive Cookie: *hidded* Host: www.insideassyria.com Referer: http://www.insideassyria.com/rkvsf4/rkvsf_core.php?Re_Guys_need_your_opinions-BVsu.3Ivw.QUOTE User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1) |
- 10/29 20:48
Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9