Boycott Caterpillar!

Byrnzie wrote:

chadwick wrote:

place is a disaster over there. i haven't the answer but peace. them folks don't know the word peace.

They did, until the Zionists with their own particular brand of ethnic nationalism moved in.

It's technically England's fault as their actions after WWII led to the creation of the state. Of course, current events would be different if it were not for Germany's ethnic cleansing and Europe's overall dislike of the Jews.

But now we should focus our anger on a heavy equipment manufacturer in the U.S. who have obviously been honing their engineering of equipment since 1925 for the pure motive of the destruction of Palestine.

SweetChildofMine wrote:

No, but is the premise of propaganda we are given.

What? That's not even a complete sentence. What are you referring to? if your post was not even important enough for you to reread to make sure it makes sense, why should anyone else read it? lol.

As for this thread, can you people just start putting things into perspective? A corporation is selling products to an entity seeking to use it for illegal purposes. I mean, can you imagine a store that repeatedly sells weapons to a serial killer, knowing full well what they are being used for? Would you defend such a store? What is this absurdity plaguing the Train? Defenders of Republican Presidential nominees who are nothing but fascists, and in fact are so enthusiastic about their fascism that they'd probably happily agree with the accusation themselves, and corporations that are interested in nothing but capital gain at the expense of human beings.

I agree with godfather and Jason amongst others
Catapillar do nt make weapons of war. They make bulldozers.
When somebody puts in an order for 1. If theyput down ( to run over Palestinian women and children ) I'm sure the order wouldn't be processed.
So an order would be entered and the product sent. What the customer does with it is the customers responsibility . They would be provided instructions in its use and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have instructions on killing people's

I'm against Israel's policies completely and I think this is attacking the wrong people.

Byrnzie wrote:

'Since 2003, the United Nations has begun to develop standards for corporations in the form of the U.N. Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights. This document states that companies should not “engage in or benefit from” violations of international human rights or humanitarian law and that companies “shall further seek to ensure that the goods and services they provide will not be used to abuse human rights.”

It's a bulldozer mate

If we want to get pedantic
Should we blame ford for building a motorcar that runs over people
Or a Suzuki for making a motorbike that somebody used to drive up beside an Iranian scientists car and plant a bomb on it
Should we also boycott Ll the petrol companies as they may make the fuel that runs the bulldozer
How about the company that produces the seals and gaskets that are used to maintain the. Bulldozers

Byrnzie wrote:

'Since 2003, the United Nations has begun to develop standards for corporations in the form of the U.N. Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights. This document states that companies should not “engage in or benefit from” violations of international human rights or humanitarian law and that companies “shall further seek to ensure that the goods and services they provide will not be used to abuse human rights.”

If CAT has violated a UN agreement, wouldn't it be subject to the consequences necessarily, I imagine, spelled out in the "Norms."?

IS there a violation that the UN is persuing against CAT, that you know of ?

Weren't these norms and standards put in place to obliterate the need for a U.S. company being subject to boycotts, and public "badwill" ,etc. ?

I'm also wondering with regard to this paragraph from your previous sourced quote:

"Caterpillar makes the D9 to military specifications and sells the bulldozers to Israel as weapons under the U.S. Foreign Military Sales Program, a government-to-government program for selling U.S.-made defense equipment. Once exported to Israel, the bulldozers are armoured by the state-owned Israel Military Industries Ltd. Weighing roughly 64 tons, the armored D9 is more than 13 feet tall and 26 feet long with front and rear blades."

Under said "U.S. Foreign Military Sales Program", were there violations that CAT is subject to?

...Regardless, despite ALL of the above possible violations, how much percent of revenue/gross profit ARE its sales of inidividual consumer goods such as clothing & boots & hats? I'm wondering if a boycott would even be noticeable on just 10% lost sales from a boycott (which is generous) of only possible 1% or 2% of its total revenue base.

I saved this draft earlier, and mr.fuck has already made a couple of my points...but decided to post it cause some of this still bein discussed.

MookiesLaw wrote:

Jason P wrote:

You are implying we should boycott a company because someone is using their product in a way in which they did not engineer for that purpose.

Not quite. Not sure about others but i am implying that CAT should be boycotted because they are selling a product knowing full well that it is then modified and used to violate Human rights and continues to do so.

If CAT didn't know that once sold, the machines are modified and used for the above then that is a different argument. The problem i have with CAT is they know exactly what the machines are used for.

Right. Their shareholder meetings are protested every year, and groups have bought shares in order to speak to the board and shareholders directly. They know perfectly well what they're used for. The puzzling thing is that sales to the IDF (not directly: via the US DoD) accounts for very, very little of their annual profit (I read it was a fraction of 1%)....so why do they risk the bad press?

I'm curious why you (Jason P), think boycotting is a dangerous path of logic?
My only problem with it is that there is something out there that makes nearly every corp worth boycotting, so it's difficult to call one out while not calling out others. But we all have our own standpoints, right? If Israeli apartheid isn't a priority of your social conscience, you might not support the boycott....That's fine. But why do you think others shouldn't utilize this tool to support their beliefs and push for change? It IS mostly a symbolic gesture, but it's obviously one that gets people talking, and that's the point. Maybe one day CAT decides enough is enough with the bad press, and issues a statement condemning the demolitions. Every little bit of increased pressure helps. And if it doesn't really hurt CAT's bottom line, but raises awareness...what are you anti-boycott people getting upset about?

I wish more people shared info about the shady dealings of the corporate world...Instead, we have a bunch of people mocking the very idea of 'voting with our dollars'........One of the only ways we can affect change in this plutocratic excuse of a capitalist society we live in....why defend corporate interests before human ones? :?

pandora wrote:

you brought up symbolize (spelling!) ...

I really don't think you should go down that route - mocking a spelling 'error' which is not. Whilst both the 's' and the 'z' are used, symbolise is the 'proper' way to spell the word. With a 'z' it is an americanism, introduced way after the 's'. You may want to edit your post.

Now... back to the issue..... Drowned out - couldn't agree more with you.