UN to Caterpillar:Stop selling bulldozers to Israel.

And how many people would be alive today if guns wouldn't be legalized in the US? How many people in the drugsscene? But also: how many children, wives, grandparents, friends?

0 Replies

Interestingly, what was left out in that source:

Quote:

While Ziegler's letter was written under the letterhead of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, a spokesman for that office said human rights investigators like Ziegler were "independent experts who act in their personal capacity."

Source

0 Replies

Looking at the source: are we into extreme leftish circles Walter? :wink:

0 Replies

Quote:

And by that you conclude drugs are the only factor of importance in solving these problems?

To my thinking, the problem of gang violence in California is a drug problem and not a gun problem. That's correct.

Drugs is a core problem. I don't think it's accurate to identify it as the only problem.

That being said, there are a lot of drug related problems that can be addressed with good success by legalizing drugs:

Mind altering drugs have been used by humans for thousands of years and they will, likely, continue to be used for many many years to come.

If we continue to outlaw them we will not succeed in eliminating their use, but we will succeed in sustaining an enormously wealthy and enormously powerful international criminal network, the tentacles of which reach into terrorist activities and governmental corruption.

Given that the continued use of drugs is inevitable and that there is absolutely no reason to believe the War on Drugs can ever be won, we need to ask ourselves not only what we believe we are achieving following the current course, but what the unintended consequences of our actions may be.

All we can possibly believe we are achieving is some degree of control over drug use in America.

The fear is that addiction rates will sky rocket if drugs are legalized. I've yet to see any convincing evidence that this is a likely outcome of legalization, but perhaps someone can provide a source.

With the legalization of drugs there will, undoubtedly, be an increase in the addiction rate, but whether the increase will be permanent or temporary, and how large the increase remains questionable.

What is more certain,however, is that the level of crime directly and indirectly associated with illegal drugs will decrease dramatically.

Legalized drugs will become a significant source of tax revenue.

Legalized drugs will result in new legal industries with new legal jobs.

Legalized drugs will result in the savings of billions of dollars in taxpayer's money currently spent on the War on Drugs.

Legalized drugs will result in a sizable reduction of our prison's population - primarily in terms of non-violent offenders who currently leave prison a lot more anti-social than when they entered it.

Legalized drugs will result in the ruination of a significant number of people's lives. Illegal drugs do so today. Legal alcohol does so today. Legal gambling does so today. This is tragic, but it is inevitable. It's part of the human experience. No amount of legislation and policing can assure that people will choose to live stable and productive lives, and no amount of legislation and policing can eliminate the numerous means by which people, who choose to ruin their lives, can destroy themselves.

0 Replies

Rick d'Israeli wrote:

And how many people would be alive today if guns wouldn't be legalized in the US? How many people in the drugsscene? But also: how many children, wives, grandparents, friends?

The outlawing of guns will not reduce the number of drug related fire arm deaths. Most of these deaths involve guns already outlawed.

0 Replies

That does not mean that outlawing the rest would not starve the illicit market by terminanting it's source: the legal market Finn.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

That does not mean that outlawing the rest would not starve the illicit market by terminanting it's source: the legal market Finn.

If drugs can find there way across our borders why not guns?

Eliminating the legal manufacturing and sales of any and all guns in this country (something few if any gun control proponents are calling for) would reduce the availability of illegal guns and drive up their cost, but it would not starve the market. If, at the same time, drugs remained legal and a source of great wealth for criminals, these wealthy criminals would find ways to purchase their illegal guns.

I don't have any great fondness for guns and of all the rights we enjoy, the right to bear arms is probably the one I value the least, but outlawing guns is not going to make a significant dent in drug related violence.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Rick d'Israeli wrote:
And how many people would be alive today if guns wouldn't be legalized in the US? How many people in the drugsscene? But also: how many children, wives, grandparents, friends?

The outlawing of guns will not reduce the number of drug related fire arm deaths. Most of these deaths involve guns already outlawed.

Aha.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

The fear is that addiction rates will sky rocket if drugs are legalized. I've yet to see any convincing evidence that this is a likely outcome of legalization, but perhaps someone can provide a source.

As a Dutchman I can say that these fears are indeed, to a certain height, false. With the "legalization" of softdrugs here (or better, "gedogen", long story, see one of my earlier threads) the number of users is as far as I know lower in the Netherlands than in the surrounding countries. The number of users is actually decreasing among youth. I don't have a source (yet) to prove what I just said, point is I saw it on the news some weeks ago. But I bet there is also an internetarticle concerning it.

I'll be back :wink:

0 Replies

From bulldozers to guns to drugs...? Smile

My point is, let Israel get their bulldozers from someone else, the ones they might use for normal purposes, and otherwise. We probably subsidize Caterpillar to provide them to Israel anyway. We already assist Israel enough, and it's to our own detriment in the long run.

"While Ziegler's letter was written under the letterhead of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, a spokesman for that office said human rights investigators like Ziegler were "independent experts who act in their personal capacity."

Be that as it may, I concur with the accusation.

And I believe the adage: if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Oh... and the gov't.

Drugs? That problem ain't going away in America.
Legalize and sell it like liquor, with the same constraints and penalties for misuse.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
That does not mean that outlawing the rest would not starve the illicit market by terminanting it's source: the legal market Finn.

If drugs can find there way across our borders why not guns?

That is an interesting, if unrelated question to the logic you had forwarded.

Your assertion was that outlawing guns would "not reduce the number of drug related fire arm deaths. Most of these deaths involve guns already outlawed".

As I pointed out, the idea is not for criminals to willingly volunteer to comply but rather to starve the markets.

How starvation can be achieved is a valid question to the issue of gun control but wholly unrelated to the axiom you touched on with the ole "the guns commiting crimes are already illegal" mantra.

Quote:

Eliminating the legal manufacturing and sales of any and all guns in this country (something few if any gun control proponents are calling for) would reduce the availability of illegal guns and drive up their cost, but it would not starve the market.

Says who? It could. I don't happen to think it will take place in the US given all the people whose sense of self-identity revolve around guns (see all the ideologues who joing only to talk of guns and sport gun avatars) but there is ample evidence that such a state can be reached.

Quote:

.... outlawing guns is not going to make a significant dent in drug related violence.

I'm inclined to agree on at least the short term result but I contend that if gun control established itself as part of our culture it would make a large long-term difference.

Thing is, there's far too many people who really do love their guns here for me to even think it's worth attempting at the moment.

0 Replies

All right that's about enough.

the reincarnation of suzy wrote:

Interesting point, actually. Should Caterpillar decide to stop selling to Israel, at least there's one company doing the right thing from a human rights perspective.

Ya. It's monstrous for a bulldozer company to sell bulldozers. Those evil beasts. Rolling Eyes

After all, some other overzealous activist might deliberately stand in the path of another one.

the reincarnation of suzy wrote:

Who sells Palestinians those vests? Probably another US company.
Very interesting!

Do you have some evidence of this? Any reason whatsoever to make such an outrages claim? Or do you just enjoy implicating "US company's" in terrorist activity without a shred of proof or any conceivable reason for doing so? Rolling Eyes

the reincarnation of suzy wrote:

Although Americans might not see or care to acknowledge the connections we have to terrorist activities of all sorts, you can bet other countries and terrorists do.

Why? Why do you want to make the US look bad with unsubstantiated garbage like this? Rolling Eyes

the reincarnation of suzy wrote:

My point is, let Israel get their bulldozers from someone else, the ones they might use for normal purposes, and otherwise.

Why on earth would you be against an American company selling non weapons related equipment around the world? I gather no one close to you works for that company, eh?

the reincarnation of suzy wrote:

We probably subsidize Caterpillar to provide them to Israel anyway.

Again why? Why make up nonsense like this? Do you have some reason to want to believe that Caterpillar is subsidized in some secret effort to help Israel? Where does your hatred of the US come from?

And people wonder why they're accused of being anti-American. Idea

Get a grip or get out of my country. Evil or Very Mad

0 Replies

It's not your country anymore than it is hers. The whole "get out of my country" is a culmination of political silliness.

In any case Suzy is serendipitously correct. The US government has given Caterpillar subsidy in recent years.

But it was for insignificant amounts and farm-related, not Israel related (unless you consider our foreign aid to Israel a subsidy that indirectly subsidizes Caterpillar, but that's a hell of a stretch).

0 Replies

Craven, you are reaching, badly, but I understand.
Sorry Suzy. Nicotine free for 9 days, and I'm not quite used to it yet. You can stay (even without a grip).

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

All right that's about enough.

the reincarnation of suzy wrote:
Interesting point, actually. Should Caterpillar decide to stop selling to Israel, at least there's one company doing the right thing from a human rights perspective.

Ya. It's monstrous for a bulldozer company to sell bulldozers. Those evil beasts. After all, some other overzealous activist might deliberately stand in the path of another one.
I didn't say caterpillar is monstrous or evil. I'm asserting that now that it's been pointed out that their equipment is being used in such an unsavory way, they are now fully equipped to make a decision one way or another.
If they should decide to STOP, that's a good decision from a human rights perspective, is it not?

the reincarnation of suzy wrote:
Who sells Palestinians those vests? Probably another US company.
Very interesting!
Do you have some evidence of this? Any reason whatsoever to make such an outrages claim? Or do you just enjoy implicating "US company's" in terrorist activity without a shred of proof or any conceivable reason for doing so?
Evidence of what? I said 'probably" because someone already suggested it, and yeah, it's a possibility, isn't it? Our great nation, and certainly some of it's big companies, are historically famous for playing both sides of the deck. This is not an untruth. Akin to arming dictators while knowing we'll have to take them down later. We do it. it's not inconceivable that we're doing it in this situation. I found it a very interesting proposition. I'm not implicating any country, not am I closing my eyes to any possibility. Wouldn't that be just plain ignorant? "I don't like the implications, so i'm not going to question it- I'd rather not know". D'uh

[quote="the reincarnation of suzy"] Although Americans might not see or care to acknowledge the connections we have to terrorist activities of all sorts, you can bet other countries and terrorists do. Why? Why do you want to make the US look bad with unsubstantiated garbage like this?

Want to? I don't want to. But come on! I'm only stating the obvious, and it's no secret, Bill. Again, I should just pretend it's not true? is that what "good Americans" are required to do these days? I can't just close my eyes and pretend, because good Americans don't! It comes with the territory. We have a duty as Americans to keep our country great, not to be unquestioning drones of whoever is currently in power.[/color]

the reincarnation of suzy wrote:

My point is, let Israel get their bulldozers from someone else, the ones they might use for normal purposes, and otherwise.

Why on earth would you be against an American company selling non weapons related equipment around the world? That's a stretch, Bill. I'm not. Not at all. I gather no one close to you works for that company, eh?
I guess if someone I know did, they might be having second thoughts.
[quote="the reincarnation of suzy"] We probably subsidize Caterpillar to provide them to Israel anyway. [/quote]
Shocked

Again why? Why make up nonsense like this? Do you have some reason to want to believe that Caterpillar is subsidized in some secret effort to help Israel? Where does your hatred of the US come from? Where do you see hatred, Bill? Get a grip!~And people wonder why they're accused of being anti-American. Idea

Get a grip or get out of my country. Evil or Very Mad

[/quote]

Uh huh. Rolling Eyes

Again, see above.
I don't need to be jaundiced to be American. Or do I? Is it now a requirement to pretend we do nothing wrong? Is it so wrong to want one's country to do better? If it is, well, then, call me unAmerican, because I'm not settling. We can do better and should always strive to.

0 Replies

the reincarnation of suzy wrote:

Evidence of what? I said 'probably" because someone already suggested it, and yeah, it's a possibility, isn't it? Our great nation, and certainly some of it's big companies, are historically famous for playing both sides of the deck. This is not an untruth. Akin to arming dictators while knowing we'll have to take them down later. We do it. it's not inconceivable that we're doing it in this situation. I found it a very interesting proposition. I'm not implicating any country, not am I closing my eyes to any possibility. Wouldn't that be just plain ignorant? "I don't like the implications, so i'm not going to question it- I'd rather not know". D'uh

D'uh? Just plain ignorant?
You justify stating that a US company is probably responsible for terrorist vests by stating it's possible? Possible cause is justification for an "interesting proposition"... Probable cause is prelude to indictment. Do you really not see the difference? You suggested it is Probable that a U.S Company is an accomplice in providing terrorist vests with absolutely no justification for doing so. Your subsequent word play is no justification either. A retraction is called for if that isn't what you meant to say.

the reincarnation of suzy wrote:

Want to? I don't want to. But come on! I'm only stating the obvious, and it's no secret, Bill. Again, I should just pretend it's not true? is that what "good Americans" are required to do these days? I can't just close my eyes and pretend, because good Americans don't! It comes with the territory. We have a duty as Americans to keep our country great, not to be unquestioning drones of whoever is currently in power.

Suzy, if you don't want to, how do you explain such an illogical assumptive leap? Do you really think you are helping "to keep our country great" by suggesting we are probably helping terrorists to blow up innocent people, without a shred of even circumstantial evidence?

the reincarnation of suzy wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Why on earth would you be against an American company selling non weapons related equipment around the world?
That's a stretch, Bill. I'm not. Not at all.

No?

... That is precisely what you are saying. Is it not?

the reincarnation of suzy wrote:

I don't need to be jaundiced to be American. Or do I? Is it now a requirement to pretend we do nothing wrong? Is it so wrong to want one's country to do better? If it is, well, then, call me unAmerican, because I'm not settling. We can do better and should always strive to.

What are you babbling about? Do you think it is your patriotic duty to suggest fellow Americans are probably guilty of contributing to specific atrocities, without a shred of proof? Yes Suzy, I'd call that anti-American. Strive harder.

0 Replies

"You justify stating that a US company is probably responsible for terrorist vests by stating it's possible? Possible cause is justification for an "interesting proposition"... Probable cause is prelude to indictment. Do you really not see the difference? You suggested it is Probable that a U.S Company is an accomplice in providing terrorist vests with absolutely no justification for doing so. Your subsequent word play is no justification either. A retraction is called for if that isn't what you meant to say."

Is this the Wall Street Journal or something? Smile

Maybe an English class? Lighten up, for crying out loud! Address the real issue! If a retraction is called for, fine, I'll retract it, professor Bill. I think people understood my statement.
Yeah, you're right. The idea of the US contributing to anything that smacks of allowing human rights violations is so far out of the realm of probability!
Yeah, ummm... okay then.

"No? ... That is precisely what you are saying. Is it not?"

A little comprehension, please. I'm not talking about "non-military" uses, which appears quite obvious. Further, Caterpillar and the use of it's bulldozers as weapons against human rights IS the topic, as BrandX related it. How hard is that to understand, Bill? I am addressing the topic as stated. Don't like that? Too bad!
Sigh.
"I'd call that anti-American. Strive harder."

You didn't even get what I was trying to say there, Bill. What a surprise!
If one of us were not being a dutiful American, it would be you.

Now, if you're done insulting me...? Did you have an opinion on the assertion of human rights violations for bulldozing homes? A thought of your own on the subject?

0 Replies

the reincarnation of suzy wrote:

Is this the Wall Street Journal or something? Maybe an English class? Lighten up, for crying out loud! Address the real issue! If a retraction is called for, fine, I'll retract it, professor Bill. I think people understood my statement.

I can't tell. Are you retracting it or standing by it? Are you asking me to believe that you think the word probably is synonymous with possible? You think I'm a nit-picking professor because I take issue with that assumption? Come on Suzy. I don't want to pick on you but you're making it difficult not to.

the reincarnation of suzy wrote:

Yeah, you're right. The idea of the US contributing to anything that smacks of allowing human rights violations is so far out of the realm of probability!
Yeah, ummm... okay then.

Did I say something to provoke that?

the reincarnation of suzy wrote:

A little comprehension, please. I'm not talking about "non-military" uses, which appears quite obvious.

Really? I thought you said:

Quote:

My point is, let Israel get their bulldozers from someone else, the ones they might use for normal purposes, and otherwise.

which kinda sounded like you meant all bulldozers. I'll stop pointing out false statements when you stop making them.

the reincarnation of suzy wrote:

Further, Caterpillar and the use of it's bulldozers as weapons against human rights IS the topic, as BrandX related it. How hard is that to understand, Bill? I am addressing the topic as stated. Don't like that? Too bad!
Sigh.

It looked to me like BrandX was stating that the UN is silly for blaming a Bulldozer manufacturer for what has been done with their Bulldozers... and I would tend to agree. I took issue when you interjected that American businesses probably had a role in Palestinian terrorism. That struck me as odd, incorrect and worthy of clarifying. My country gets muddy enough without people making up extra stuff, so I took issue.

the reincarnation of suzy wrote:

Now, if you're done insulting me...? Did you have an opinion on the assertion of human rights violations for bulldozing homes? A thought of your own on the subject?

I apologize if you feel I've been insulting you for sport. That really isn't my intention. Lately I've been irritated by people making the U.S. look worse than it is by making groundless accusations and ignoring facts. By pointing out the falseness in these claims, I'm hoping to dissuade the speakers from unnecessarily bashing my country in the future. I know you are patriotic so I know you can understand that.

I agree with BrandX insofar as the UN's chastising Caterpillar is concerned. That is akin to blaming Smith and Wesson for murders.

Original thoughts? Ya, I have a few (here comes your chance to bash me :wink: ): I think the U.S. should do an about face, tell Israel to back the hell out of the Gaza Strip and West Bank and apologize for the moronic comment about "realities on the ground". I further think we should pass the proverbial hat and use the funds to reimburse Israel for every penny spent building on that land, since our wishy-washy attitude about it could be argued to reflect acceptance. No, it's not our debt... and that's why I think the gesture would go a long way towards showing the world we really are interested in peace, for human's sake.

Palestinians get their lands back with much improvement!

Israel gets American (and hopefully some international) dough for compensation.

The world gets peace. If either side has a problem with the deal, they have a problem with the United States of America! (and we are currently demonstrating why you don't want that). That's my solution.

0 Replies

Craven wrote:

Your assertion was that outlawing guns would "not reduce the number of drug related fire arm deaths. Most of these deaths involve guns already outlawed".

As I pointed out, the idea is not for criminals to willingly volunteer to comply but rather to starve the markets.

How starvation can be achieved is a valid question to the issue of gun control but wholly unrelated to the axiom you touched on with the ole "the guns commiting crimes are already illegal" mantra.

You misunderstood my point if you interpreted it as a version of the "guns don't kill, people with guns kill" argument.

Swolf suggested that drugs, not guns, are at the core of gang violence in California. I agreed.

Rick raised the question of how many people would be alive today if guns had been outlawed in the US, and also how many people in the drug scene (would be alive today if guns had been outlawed in the US)

I haven't attempted to answer the first part of his question, but I still maintain that outlawing guns would have made virtually no difference in the number of people in the "drug scene" who have been murdered.

The "drug scene" is a criminal environment and it's denizens, who are inclined towards violence, are not about to be put off by legalities. The vast majority of the guns they use to kill one another, and innocent bystanders are already illegal. If they couldn't obtain their guns from within this country they would go outside it, as they do with their drugs.

This is not an argument against gun control, simply a fact which may or may not be useful in the argument on gun control.

It seems to me that the only attempt at advancing an axiom on this subject is the holding that if all guns are made illegal, the illicit market will dry up, and this is, of course, your argument.

The only conceivable way that eliminating the legal manufacturing and sales of any and all guns will starve the illegal market in this country is if it is extended worldwide. All manner of illegal products find their way into this country as would guns if demand persisted. The illegal gun market may or may not thrive in this country because of a parallel legal market that can overlap, but it will not disappear if the legal market is eliminated. The cost of illegal guns would likely skyrocket, but criminals in the "drug scene" who are awash in drug money will not be deterred from purchasing firearms.

There is a better chance of reducing drug related gun violence by legalizing drugs than outlawing all guns.

You have touched on it yourself: the means by which a full ban on guns in this country might result in the elimination of an illegal market is through a very long term alteration of our culture's relationship with guns.

Anything is possible, but I'm afraid this one is highly unlikely for the foreseeable future, as it would require the banning of all guns, and that just ain't going to happen...whether or not it should.

0 Replies

Ignoring your first comment.
Answer to second comment:
Yeah, you did, if you want to call it a provocation. You said: "You suggested it is Probable that a U.S Company is an accomplice in providing terrorist vests with absolutely no justification for doing so." So, yeah. My reply stands as is. reasons previously stated.
Answer to third and fourth comments:
To be even more specific, my statement; "let Israel get their bulldozers from someone else, the ones they might use for normal purposes, and otherwise." is not a statement against the caterpillar company, but rather against the use of their equipment by Israel. In other words, were I the head of the company, I would probably (oh, should I be saying possibly, or is there a more appropriate word, even? Oh dear.) decide to not be a part of that. There are other countries from which bulldozers are available, I'm sure. It was a statement against Israel, not an anti-capitolist screed against American companies! Against Israel's use of American equipment, got it? Sorry if I'm not articulate enough for you, but please note that I do at least have good manners; refraining from pointing out various typos and the like. Also, I'm quite beautiful, of course. Modest too.

Answer to fifth comment, quoted here for ease: "It looked to me like BrandX was stating that the UN is silly for blaming a Bulldozer manufacturer for what has been done with their Bulldozers... and I would tend to agree. I took issue when you interjected that American businesses probably had a role in Palestinian terrorism. That struck me as odd, incorrect and worthy of clarifying. My country gets muddy enough without people making up extra stuff, so I took issue"
I am well aware that BrandX posted this for entirely different purposes than for which I addressed it. However, I don't see the article as blaming the company, only pointing out what the equipment is being used for, and that it aint nice. It pointed out that a resolution passed this year by the UN Human Rights Commission extends responsibility to protect rights to non-state actors, and warns that the company could be considered an accomplice in human rights violations. I don't see that as quite the same as "blaming a Bulldozer manufacturer for what has been done with their Bulldozers". To further clarify, I said "probably" in response to Finn's question. (and believe me, I know it was sarcastic). And again, it's not beyond the realm of possibility if you've any knowledge of history (well, true history, not the stuff you read in grade school). And again, for reasons I've already stated, our country is complicit in a lot of bad stuff. We may not be as great as we thought we were, what with torture and setting up dictators and knocking down democracies and all, but that doesn't mean we can't be. I don't see how acknowledging that we're not perfect is being unAmerican, but I take no stock in that accusation when it's hurled for those reasons. I listen and learn more from people who speak and look for truth anyway. When someone seems to be ignoring reality or becoming angry at one who doesn't, it matters little to me what such a person thinks of me and my views.
And thanks, but I don't care to be thought of (or not thought of) as patriotic; the word has little value these days now that it's tossed about or withdrawn for casual and stupid reasons. I'm just a person who lives in the USA and is happy to be here, and who hopes the country will live up to it's former reputation of greatness.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Craven wrote:
Your assertion was that outlawing guns would "not reduce the number of drug related fire arm deaths. Most of these deaths involve guns already outlawed".

As I pointed out, the idea is not for criminals to willingly volunteer to comply but rather to starve the markets.

How starvation can be achieved is a valid question to the issue of gun control but wholly unrelated to the axiom you touched on with the ole "the guns commiting crimes are already illegal" mantra.

You misunderstood my point if you interpreted it as a version of the "guns don't kill, people with guns kill" argument.

I said nothing of the guns/people mantra, I spoke of the outlaw/outlaws mantra.

So it wasn't the "guns don't kill, people kill" but rather the "if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns" mantra that I addressed.

But confusion between them is understandable because they are both as common as they are fallacious.

Quote:

It seems to me that the only attempt at advancing an axiom on this subject is the holding that if all guns are made illegal, the illicit market will dry up, and this is, of course, your argument.

No, Finn it's not. In fact I have not ever argued that in my life that I can recall. I have argued that it is possible but have also argued that I do not think it would work in America, thereby preventing its consideration as an axiom.

Quote:

The only conceivable way that eliminating the legal manufacturing and sales of any and all guns will starve the illegal market in this country is if it is extended worldwide.

Someone forgot to inform the nations that have already sucessfully starved their markets without needing a worldwide measure.

So I respectfully suggest that it is only "the only conceivable way" to select individuals.

Quote:

Anything is possible, but I'm afraid this one is highly unlikely for the foreseeable future, as it would require the banning of all guns, and that just ain't going to happen...whether or not it should.

I agree with this as well as with many of the other points you submit in regard to probability.

What I reject is the notion that many put forward that certain elements of gun control that successfully exist in some nations are inconceivable or impossible.

0 Replies

UN to Caterpillar:Stop selling bulldozers to Israel.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know