The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
SKB makes cases for guns & military...? Amp Sim & Guitar Effects Plugins
Old 30th March 2010
  #31
Lives for gear
 

90% of low end recording gear is made in China and soldered together by teenagers who work 16 hour days in hot, uncomfortable conditions for less than $5 a day, and have no career prospects beyond that, and have to stay because soldering microphones is better than gutting fish. This is ethical right??

Soldiers also work very long days in hot, uncomfortable conditions for substandard pay, and put their life on the line for your country. But for SKB to supply them good quality cases for their weapons, which their lives will depend on, is completely unethical.

Unless you only buy boutique, hand soldered equipment, I think you may be experiencing something known as 'double standards'.
Old 30th March 2010
  #32
Lives for gear
 
loujudson's Avatar
"Defense Department" was called War Department up to a point in recent history. They do kill people and other living things.

My dad was a lifer, 30 years to retire as and Army colonel, so were his three brothers... I was drafted in 1971 and became an instant Conscientious Objector. My cousins went to Stanford and became lawyers, I went to SFSTate abd became a sound guy. I broke the mold for my family...

L
Old 30th March 2010
  #33
Lives for gear
 
KevWind's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by GZsound View Post

In the meantime, just about wherever you live on this planet, America is providing defense for you.

But don't think about "big picture" stuff like that. Enjoy your life and make lots of music.
Seems we may have had this discussion before ?

In any case here in lie the crux of the issue

While I believe that the individual military personnel intensions are for defense of freedom and humanitarian reasons. And that the service personal deserve our support For ALL the issues that effect them.

If one takes step back from rhetoric of flag waving and truly and objectively examines "The Actual Big Picture"

Then some troubling questions arise as to What really are reasons for the selections of just exactly where, when and why The US chooses to use its military presence and engage in operations ?

The nagging question "The big picture" of history will ask or should ask is.

IF defense of freedom and Human rights is in fact the primary reason for US military Actions (As opposed to say defense of major resource supply)

Then How does one explain the Galactic inconsistency in the US invading Iraq and not invading Rwanda ???

Iraq - suspected human rights violations resulting in an estimated 70,000 to 100,000 deaths'

Rwanda- confirmed year long genocide, resulting in an estimated death toll of 900,000 to 1,000,000 thats 1 million Tutsi slaughtered while while the US and the rest the coalition did nothing militarily.

The only objective logical " big ,big picture " conclusion one can reach is that the only significant difference between the situation in Iraq and Rwanda was the urgency of economic, logistical and ultimately strategic US and coalition self interest in the very real possible destabilization of the oil supply.

Mind you I am not making a moral value judgement for against those interests. But if we are going inject "The Big Picture" How about we get real and do so with a bit further "Big Picture" objectivity ???

I am merely pointing out, that for all the Talk Show World View rhetoric.. Any benefits of freedom and humanitarian interest that all the countries that enjoy or suffer, US military presence. Said results may be secondary products of US self Interest .

More importantly, if one looks at the the Long Term Big Picture of the last 10 to 15 thousand years of Human History with its endless cycles of war punctuated with brief periods of intermittent peace. Then History's lesson is (if the World would just learn from it) . While force may effect a temporary peace, it cannot maintain IT.
Thus - Albert Einstein's quote below becomes disturbingly Prophetic
Old 30th March 2010
  #34
Lives for gear
 
loujudson's Avatar
Iraq is about oil, and racism. Afghanistan is about oil, racism and a pipeline.

But all of them are about establishing bases worldwide for whatever reason! Permanent bases got American hegemony.

<L>
Old 30th March 2010
  #35
Lives for gear
 

"The nagging question "The big picture" of history will ask or should ask is.

IF defense of freedom and Human rights is in fact the primary reason for US military Actions (As opposed to say defense of major resource supply)

Then How does one explain the Galactic inconsistency in the US invading Iraq and not invading Rwanda ??? "



Very simple. You see, Saddam actually had possesion of weapons of mass destruction in the past, and get this, HE SHOWED THE WILL TO USE THEM by actually using them on his own people, REAL HUMAN BEINGS!! So we have a dictator who alreadt proved that he could make or get his hands on weapons of mass destruction, but he then took the huge step to ACTUALLy USE them on real human beings. he was a terrible mass murderer who especially hated America. After 9-11, the danger of such a human being having control over a nation that had already shown the ability to have these weapons AND USE THEM was very dangerous for America with Osama and his minions having wet dreams about using these weapons against America. How long would it have been before supply and demand hooked up? You see, there's no way we have enough military even if we drafted every young man under 25 to go out and stop all human rights abuses and unjust killing in the world. The Military and the governments FIRST duty and priority is to PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE above all else. Saddam was a far greater risk to the American people than the African nation. I think your understanding of the situation is simply lacking any real thought about what our government is supposed to do and what priorities they should have. Their job is not to go around the world and take out the dictators that are simply killing the most innocent human beings. Their job is to protect the American people first and foremost. That's why saddam was taken out, and it's a good thing.

The war for oil thinking is simply shallow and silly when you think of it. What politicians really want is political power. You can be assured that had the war been about oil then we wouldn't be paying even close to the prices we pay for gas. Do you think Bush had swimming pools full of Iraqi oil? Do you think he would have went to war for oil without the party in power getting political power in exchange? look what happened to Bush's poll numbers, you think he just wanted ti give some oil to oil comapnies just because of a good heart, while him and his party were devastated politcally by it? Surely you know better than this. If it was about oil you would assuredly find the political fortunes of the republican in far better shape than it was and is. Bush and his family are already rich, where's the payoff to the politicians that enabled the war/ They have to file tax's, where is your evidence that it was for oil? Where is the political power that would come from sch a thing, where's the lower gas prices that republicans culd have gotten massive credit for? What we really find is that the iraq war DEVASTATED the party politcally, so then they must have lined their own pockets, where's the evidence of this? What did they get for this oil war? surely they got something out of it. So they got payment but no one knows how, where, or can prove it? And they freed 25 million people from Saddam's brutal regime, that was just a good concequence of the oil war? The unintendedly freed 25 million people, but it was really about oil yet they got no political power from it and lost the next election with horrible poll numbers, lost congress? Where's your evidence since you must have some because you are actually basing purchasing decisions on this. Surely you wouldn't do that without solid evidence, would you?
Old 30th March 2010
  #36
Gear Addict
 
CityDump Records's Avatar
 

As far as companies who sell music equipment I know Sweetwater focus on energy efficiency. Their whole facility is designed to save energy. It is a nice place to. I went up their a couple of weeks back for a seminar.
Old 30th March 2010
  #37
Lives for gear
 
saovi's Avatar
 

SKB makes superb rack cases for your rack gear. That said, if you have a moral problem with them, buy elsewhere. There's plenty of spin offs using the same design without the military baggage. OSP makes great ones at a really nice price - for example:

OSP 6 space rack case example

(no affiliation)
Old 30th March 2010
  #38
Gear Head
 
elementse7en!'s Avatar
 

Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by whyuncertainty View Post
awesome! thats exactly what i was looking for. have you ever played one of these things? are they alright?
I assume your talking to me?

and yes I played one of their guitars at a music store a while back, and it was real nice. It was built real nice and it sung nicely thumbsup. The overall quality of the guitar was real up there. I preffered an Ibanez model which i'm still saving up for, but actually Laguna has a lot more models then when they did back then, I might have to give them another look .
Old 30th March 2010
  #39
Lives for gear
 
twentyhertz's Avatar
 

haha I knew it couldn't last.
Old 30th March 2010
  #40
I like my SKB case. I've had my guitar rack in it for almost a decade now, and everything still works great. I also like my BMW, even though they once built stuff for ****s.

Corporations are soulless entities that will do whatever is legal that makes them the most money with the least PR trouble. Regardless of one's political views, one cannot blame them for doing every legal thing they can to make money, they're survival is dependent upon it in our modern market structure. The only way to make business behave ethically is to force them through regulation or hit their bottom line through bad PR.

I think if enough people agreed with you, the PR aspect would take care of itself. Clearly people just don't agree on any large scale.

Your only recourse with this line of thinking is to find companies that fit your ethics. But, it's highly unlikely that you'll find many that think selling to the military is bad.

Look at it this way - apparently SKB makes the best cases for the best value, so ultimately it probably saves the American taxpayer money. They'd still buy cases whether or not SKB offered them.

My advice: save your anger for the politicians and the warmongers, not the supply chain.
Old 30th March 2010
  #41
Lives for gear
 
KevWind's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffguitar View Post
"The nagging question "The big picture" of history will ask or should ask is.

IF defense of freedom and Human rights is in fact the primary reason for US military Actions (As opposed to say defense of major resource supply)

Then How does one explain the Galactic inconsistency in the US invading Iraq and not invading Rwanda ??? "



Very simple. You see, Saddam actually had possesion of weapons of mass destruction in the past, and get this, HE SHOWED THE WILL TO USE THEM by actually using them on his own people, REAL HUMAN BEINGS!! So we have a dictator who alreadt proved that he could make or get his hands on weapons of mass destruction, but he then took the huge step to ACTUALLy USE them on real human beings. he was a terrible mass murderer who especially hated America. After 9-11, the danger of such a human being having control over a nation that had already shown the ability to have these weapons AND USE THEM was very dangerous for America with Osama and his minions having wet dreams about using these weapons against America. How long would it have been before supply and demand hooked up? You see, there's no way we have enough military even if we drafted every young man under 25 to go out and stop all human rights abuses and unjust killing in the world. The Military and the governments FIRST duty and priority is to PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE above all else. Saddam was a far greater risk to the American people than the African nation. I think your understanding of the situation is simply lacking any real thought about what our government is supposed to do and what priorities they should have. Their job is not to go around the world and take out the dictators that are simply killing the most innocent human beings. Their job is to protect the American people first and foremost. That's why saddam was taken out, and it's a good thing.

The war for oil thinking is simply shallow and silly when you think of it. What politicians really want is political power. You can be assured that had the war been about oil then we wouldn't be paying even close to the prices we pay for gas. Do you think Bush had swimming pools full of Iraqi oil? Do you think he would have went to war for oil without the party in power getting political power in exchange? look what happened to Bush's poll numbers, you think he just wanted ti give some oil to oil comapnies just because of a good heart, while him and his party were devastated politcally by it? Surely you know better than this. If it was about oil you would assuredly find the political fortunes of the republican in far better shape than it was and is. Bush and his family are already rich, where's the payoff to the politicians that enabled the war/ They have to file tax's, where is your evidence that it was for oil? Where is the political power that would come from sch a thing, where's the lower gas prices that republicans culd have gotten massive credit for? What we really find is that the iraq war DEVASTATED the party politcally, so then they must have lined their own pockets, where's the evidence of this? What did they get for this oil war? surely they got something out of it. So they got payment but no one knows how, where, or can prove it? And they freed 25 million people from Saddam's brutal regime, that was just a good concequence of the oil war? The unintendedly freed 25 million people, but it was really about oil yet they got no political power from it and lost the next election with horrible poll numbers, lost congress? Where's your evidence since you must have some because you are actually basing purchasing decisions on this. Surely you wouldn't do that without solid evidence, would you?
Wrong . Did you even bother to actually read and understand my post for what it actually said, as opposed to what you wish it to be saying .

First wrong - I said absolutely nothing about purchase decisions period .. wrong poster

Wrong- virtually no WMDs were actually found in Iraq .. forget that fact?
Right - reportedly Saddam used some chemical weapons (but mostly conventional weapons) against people like the Kurds .. who BTW while they reside in Iraq , were by no stretch of the imagination "His People" ............Historically much like giving Small Pox infected blankets to Native Americans.for example YOU KNOW ( REAL HUMAN BEINGS)

Wrong- I never once mentioned any Personal gain for BUSH or acquisition for oil companies -IN FACT -I never mentioned Bush or Republicans period - once again- wrong poster
So the entire rest of that rant is not only irrelevant, in terms of my actual post, its ridiculous....

Wrong- Iraq a direct to The American people via WMD's or connections to Al Qaeda ? sorry no actual link between Saddam and Osama was ever established .- No nuclear capability found in Iraq.- No conventional missile capability beyond just into Israel found in Iraq . Sorry the WMDs and Connections theroy this is all old political rhetoric proven over and over again to be false.
Iraq more of a threat than the weapons (free for all) in Africa ? Not really, highly debatable at best.

Was Saddam dangerous ? RIGHT--- was he best removed from power ? Right no question ---

So lets try to get this straight
Saddam was as I said extremely dangerous--- WHY ? Because he had the very real ability to destabilize the entire region. Is this a direct threat to the American people ? Debatable but I would say IMO YES.---- JUST SO YOU WILL NOT GET CONFUSED YES - DID YOU BOTHER TO READ MY POST ??? Did I make ANY moral judgement about that having been the primary reason for invading NO DID YOU BOTHER TO READ MY POST ??

If you wish to disagree with me on the main reasons for the war fine BUT please don't put words in my mouth and make up some imaginary lame ass illusion.
And here's a suggestion quit trying to rewrite history it will not serve you in the long run. It simply seems to allow your ability to ignore what was actually said and concoct a ridiculous non applicable retort.
Old 30th March 2010
  #42
Lives for gear
 
KevWind's Avatar
Now Back to the OP as I said before Taylor Guitars appears to be very conscientious about renewable resources, less toxic finishes, etc.
Old 30th March 2010
  #43
Lives for gear
 
loujudson's Avatar
Also, here is a company that makes better products, not a ripoff but an improvement, and I have switched over to buying Gators instead of SKB when I need a new case. No sign so far of military complexes:

Gator Cases - AV, Pro Audio and Musical Instrument Case & Bag Solutions

I will say one thing though for SKB: when the latches started breaking on some ten year old SKBs, they sent me replacements complete with the pop rivets and they are now good as new, for another ten yesr or so...

Lou
Old 30th March 2010
  #44
Lives for gear
 
loujudson's Avatar
Also, here is a company that makes better products, not a ripoff but an improvement, and I have switched over to buying Gators instead of SKB when I need a new case. No sign so far of military complexes:

Gator Cases - AV, Pro Audio and Musical Instrument Case & Bag Solutions

I will say one thing though for SKB: when the latches started breaking on some ten year old SKBs, they sent me replacements complete with the pop rivets and they are now good as new, for another ten years or so...

Lou
Old 30th March 2010
  #45
Gear Guru
 
charles maynes's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by loujudson View Post
Also, here is a company that makes better products, not a ripoff but an improvement, and I have switched over to buying Gators instead of SKB when I need a new case. No sign so far of military complexes:

Gator Cases - AV, Pro Audio and Musical Instrument Case & Bag Solutions

I will say one thing though for SKB: when the latches started breaking on some ten year old SKBs, they sent me replacements complete with the pop rivets and they are now good as new, for another ten years or so...

Lou
I dont mean to rain on your parade.....


Gator Industrial Cases provide high quality, innovative solutions for the toughest Industrial, Commercial, and Government/Military users. Offering the broadest range of stock product and OEM manufacturing capability, Gator Industrial provides outstanding value and service to its customers. Please use the navigation below to view a selection of in-stock products, or review our OEM section for your custom product manufacturing needs.
Old 30th March 2010
  #46
Lives for gear
 
Barish's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by whyuncertainty View Post
hey. i don't know if i've been living under a rock, but i just found out from the SKB website that they also manufacture cases for military use. I don't know if i'm the last one alive with morals (and i was pretty psyched about a case i just saw at Musikmesse in Frankfurt) but i just can't bring myself to order it. I don't know why it comes as such a shock to me... but it got me wondering...

jen
I think you are thinking too much.

The group that owns TC Electronic has one of its main businesses in military electronics. Similarly, Eventide's famous effect algorithms are all spins-off of their naval equipment research and development. Pro audio sales is just a minor part of their business, just to keep some petty cash coming in while they are at it.

In fact, throughout the history, whatever facility we have ever had in order to make our civil lives easier and better, it was invented and developed for the military first, and then it was passed onto the civil part of the society. Right down to antibiotics and penicillin...

Just get on with your music I'd say.

B.
Old 30th March 2010
  #47
Lives for gear
 
loujudson's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by charles maynes View Post
I dont mean to rain on your parade.....
No rain for me!
No problem, I didn't look on purpose. They still make better cases than SKB in my not humble opinion. I have plenty of both.


Anybody here drive a HumVee? Now THERE'S a mess of mixed ethics for ya!
L
Old 30th March 2010
  #48
Gear Head
 
whyuncertainty's Avatar
 

yeah taylors are nice too. thanks for the heads up!
Old 31st March 2010
  #49
Lives for gear
 

For what it's worth... the internet - on which you are reading this post - was a military invention. DARPAnet. Better get offline, quick!
Cell technology? Uh oh - ditch that iphone.
GPS? check

..but I digress
Old 31st March 2010
  #50
Gear Maniac
 
Barnabas's Avatar
 

I have bought SKB gun cases and SKB sports equipment cases to transport my sound and lighting gear because it was the right size.

I wish they had a single master list of all sizes of all of their equipment for those of us looking to protect custom equipment.

I have no guns or sports equipment.
Old 31st March 2010
  #51
Lives for gear
 

"Did you even bother to actually read and understand my post for what it actually said, as opposed to what you wish it to be saying . "

Sure did, I quoted you.

"First wrong - I said absolutely nothing about purchase decisions period .. wrong poster"

Whatever, you obviously agree with the other poster about the war and such, and you are both wrong.

Wrong- virtually no WMDs were actually found in Iraq .. forget that fact?

Did you read my post, obviously not. I said he had AND USED chemical weapons on real humans in HIS country, call them his people or not makes no difference. Where did I say we found the weapons THAT HE OBVIOUSLY HAD AND USED? I SAID NO SUCH THING.



"Right - reportedly Saddam used some chemical weapons (but mostly conventional weapons"

You have never seen the VIDEO footage of the mothers holding their dead babies laying in the streets? I have, try watching a credible news source in the future.



"against people like the Kurds .. who BTW while they reside in Iraq , were by no stretch of the imagination "His People"

Ah, so that makes it better. They were people IN HIS COUNTRY, feel better now? Meaningless point.




"............Historically much like giving Small Pox infected blankets to Native Americans.for example YOU KNOW ( REAL HUMAN BEINGS)"


Huh, you have proof of this? whacky statement here.

"Wrong- I never once mentioned any Personal gain for BUSH or acquisition for oil companies"

Actually, the oil part was for others who had mentioned a war for oil. You give yourself too much credit.



" -IN FACT -I never mentioned Bush or Republicans period - once again- wrong poster
So the entire rest of that rant is not only irrelevant, in terms of my actual post, its ridiculous...."

My entire post doesn't have to be intended for you. get hold of yourself.


"Wrong- Iraq a direct to The American people via WMD's or connections to Al Qaeda ? sorry no actual link between Saddam and Osama was ever established"

Did you read my post, obviously not. I said "HOW LONG BEFORE SUPPLY AND DEMAND HOOKED UP?" I didn't say there had been connections in the past, though I do recall there being some found.


".- No nuclear capability found in Iraq"

none in **** germany either when we attacked them.




."- No conventional missile capability beyond just into Israel found in Iraq"

and that's enough, they are our ally, in case you didn't know. And you don't have to have missles to get wmd's delivered to countries. Terrorists can do the job.




"Sorry the WMDs and Connections theroy this is all old political rhetoric proven over and over again to be false. "


Not a single bit of my argument depended on that, not a bit. learn to read closer. We know he had chemical weapons and USED THEM ON REAL HUMAN BEINGS!!


"Iraq more of a threat than the weapons (free for all) in Africa ? Not really, highly debatable at best."

Please, that's just silly. saddam had a jet air force, hundreds of tanks, scud missles, don't make me laugh.

"Was Saddam dangerous ? RIGHT--- was he best removed from power ? Right no question ---"

Great, we agree.

"So lets try to get this straight
Saddam was as I said extremely dangerous--- WHY ? Because he had the very real ability to destabilize the entire region. Is this a direct threat to the American people ? Debatable but I would say IMO YES.---- JUST SO YOU WILL NOT GET CONFUSED YES - DID YOU BOTHER TO READ MY POST ??? Did I make ANY moral judgement about that having been the primary reason for invading NO DID YOU BOTHER TO READ MY POST ?? "

No, you compared going there as being wrong because of the simple number of people being killed elsewhere, a very, let's say,. child like conception of what morality and goals the miltitary should have.

"If you wish to disagree with me on the main reasons for the war fine BUT please don't put words in my mouth and make up some imaginary lame ass illusion."

I quoted you.


"And here's a suggestion quit trying to rewrite history it will not serve you in the long run."

No rewriting neccesary, he actually did use wmd's against his own COUNTRY PEOPLE, got it? we were there and not in Africa because he was more of a threat to the US. You have said not a single thing to defeat any point I made. Must be nice to make believe in your mind that you did.




"It simply seems to allow your ability to ignore what was actually said and concoct a ridiculous non applicable retort"

Ridiculous. You questioned the reasons that the US went to iraq instead of Africa and hinted that it was an immoral decision, I gave you the reasons. learn to accept the truth.
Old 31st March 2010
  #52
Lives for gear
 
bexarametric's Avatar
 

If you can get your foot in the door with defense contracting then you will be rich. SKB is a company. They have the right to make money. All their parts have a lifetime warranty. They are a stand up company. They keep my guitars safe. I trust them with my soldiers too.

I do hate our congress though. All of them.
Old 31st March 2010
  #53
Personally, I take the position that one cannot be "green" once one has been born. All life is organic, we consume it, exhale carbon dioxide, excrete liquid and solid waste, and then we die. Let us not pat ourselves on the back too much about this green thing.

The posts concerning the Big Picture are among the best I've seen on this site revolving around ANY thread. If you don't see the big picture, the rest is pointless and there does seem to be a lot of focusing on PARTS of the picture going on here. This, of course, gives one an incomplete and skewed picture. Many efforts are managed with war while others are better managed with money. The U.S. has managed plenty with both, depending on which approach achieves the desired result. Many times, war is unrealistic when the country is too large, when there is a threat of massive civilian population loss, or when there is no defined enemy or front. Sometimes supplying the opposing faction with the necessary funds can severely weaken the dominating controlling force without firing a shot; this however, takes more time and, sometimes lives and money, than war itself.

I need clarification on this "war based solely on oil". I cannot find facts to support this theory, nor was I aware that the U.S. had taken control of third world countries' oil fields and/or governments and would very much like to see evidence supporting this claim. Hearsay is inconclusive. I am wondering why gasoline isn't 30 cents a gallon if the U.S. is stealing oil? Why go elsewhere to steal oil when there's plenty in your backyard? Why are Saudi princes getting filthy rich with American dollars if the U.S. is steamrolling over these oil-rich countries?

Last edited by johnny nowhere; 31st March 2010 at 01:44 PM.. Reason: present being-body failing...
Old 31st March 2010
  #54
Lives for gear
 
GZsound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevWind View Post
Seems we may have had this discussion before ?

In any case here in lie the crux of the issue

While I believe that the individual military personnel intensions are for defense of freedom and humanitarian reasons. And that the service personal deserve our support For ALL the issues that effect them.

If one takes step back from rhetoric of flag waving and truly and objectively examines "The Actual Big Picture"

Then some troubling questions arise as to What really are reasons for the selections of just exactly where, when and why The US chooses to use its military presence and engage in operations ?

The nagging question "The big picture" of history will ask or should ask is.

IF defense of freedom and Human rights is in fact the primary reason for US military Actions (As opposed to say defense of major resource supply)

Then How does one explain the Galactic inconsistency in the US invading Iraq and not invading Rwanda ???

Iraq - suspected human rights violations resulting in an estimated 70,000 to 100,000 deaths'

Rwanda- confirmed year long genocide, resulting in an estimated death toll of 900,000 to 1,000,000 thats 1 million Tutsi slaughtered while while the US and the rest the coalition did nothing militarily.

The only objective logical " big ,big picture " conclusion one can reach is that the only significant difference between the situation in Iraq and Rwanda was the urgency of economic, logistical and ultimately strategic US and coalition self interest in the very real possible destabilization of the oil supply.

Mind you I am not making a moral value judgement for against those interests. But if we are going inject "The Big Picture" How about we get real and do so with a bit further "Big Picture" objectivity ???

I am merely pointing out, that for all the Talk Show World View rhetoric.. Any benefits of freedom and humanitarian interest that all the countries that enjoy or suffer, US military presence. Said results may be secondary products of US self Interest .

More importantly, if one looks at the the Long Term Big Picture of the last 10 to 15 thousand years of Human History with its endless cycles of war punctuated with brief periods of intermittent peace. Then History's lesson is (if the World would just learn from it) . While force may effect a temporary peace, it cannot maintain IT.
Thus - Albert Einstein's quote below becomes disturbingly Prophetic
Herein lies a very basic problem with those who rely on dogma instead of facts.

If you do even the smallest amount of research, you will find that a very large majority of our military actions are for humanitarian purposes.

I would be happy to post for you all the military actions during the Clinton administration...for example, and you would be amazed at the number of humanitarian missions our armed forces carry out.

In fact, here...you may do your own research.

frontline: the clinton years: chronology | PBS

Our military provides protection for the world. We have hundreds of thousands of military posted around the world to provide protection to our allies.

And those who think we fight for oil need to step up and show us the money. Where IS all that oil? Where is the Iraqi oil we supposedly "own"? The oil companies had to bid on that oil on the open market.

Again, the misinformation surrounding our military is staggering. These are our friends, neighbors, fathers, children and relatives. They deserve our respect for their service. Without them none of us would be allowed to even speak our opinions.

Let's stop being so silly about it.
Old 31st March 2010
  #55
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by whyuncertainty View Post
hey. i don't know if i've been living under a rock, but i just found out from the SKB website that they also manufacture cases for military use. I don't know if i'm the last one alive with morals (and i was pretty psyched about a case i just saw at Musikmesse in Frankfurt) but i just can't bring myself to order it. I don't know why it comes as such a shock to me... but it got me wondering... are there any particularly ecological friendly or moral musical instrument/equipment companies at all? I feel like its something i've never seen or noticed if i have seen it.... It kind of seems inherent that musical products, especially of the electronic variety would automatically be manufactured in some third world asian country making tons of pollution and what not... even american made guitars, etc require products manufactured in asia... the list goes on, but i was just wondering if someone knew of a musical instrument company with a clean conscience. thanks!

jen
Of all the things to twist panties in the world, posts like this mean you have WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY too much spare time.

It always amazes me that someone would post that and still pay taxes... If you are going to take a stand- take a real stand.
Old 31st March 2010
  #56
Lives for gear
 
loujudson's Avatar
No wonder most civilized fora prohibit sex rligion and politics when there is a real topic, such as audio. War is politics, and killing is murder, and I'll bow out now.
Old 31st March 2010
  #57
Lives for gear
 
KevWind's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffguitar View Post
"
Sure did, I quoted you.
You qoated me but you clearly do not understand what I wrote. I will try one more time God knows why ?


Quote:
Whatever, you obviously agree with the other poster about the war and such, and you are both wrong.
Unbelievable even though my posts, clearly state absolutely nothing to support this drivel . You know Better Hey ?

Quote:
Did you read my post, obviously not. I said he had AND USED chemical weapons on real humans in HIS country, call them his people or not makes no difference. .
Makes no difference ??

I suppose not in to your out of context, ratings driven agenda , talk show sound bite, world view. But in history and reality beyond Hannity.. Was it an atrocity of course yes. but the braying of "His own people" is Sound bite spin. BS

Do you even know the real history of Iraq's chemical weapons? Where they came from and who he got them from and who supported him? and what context they were used in ??


[I]
During the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988, which Saddam Hussein launched against his neighbor, the Kurds sought Iranian support for their insurgency. The Baath regime, threatened, responded by destroying Kurdish villages in strategic zones, resorting to ethnic cleansing.
These brutal conventional measures failed to achieve their objective, and for that reason the Baath regime initiated its chemical warfare on the Kurds in 1988. The operation was headed up by Saddam's cousin, Ali Hasan al-Majid, the Secretary-General of the Northern Bureau of the Ba'th Organization. For this reason, Iraqis call him "Chemical Ali."
The Baath regime launched 39 separate gas attacks against the Kurds, many of them targeting villages far from the Iran-Iraq border. Beginning at night on Thursday, March 16, and extending into Friday, March 17, 1988, the city of Halabja (population 70,000), was bombarded with twenty chemical and cluster bombs. Photographs show dead children in the street with lunch pails.An estimated 5,000 persons died.BTW most of Saddams chemical attacks were against Iranian soldiers .
With more than 100,000 Iranian victims of Iraq's chemical weapons during the eight-year war,

Quote:
You have never seen the VIDEO footage of the mothers holding their dead babies laying in the streets? I have, try watching a credible news source in the future.
Like who FOX ? . AND Did Your credible news source Happen to mention how or from WHO Saddam acquired much of the Duel use chemicals. Did Your credible news mention this little fact


Iraq purchased 8 strains of anthrax from the United States in 1985, according to British biological weapons expert David Kelly.[28] The Iraqi military settled on the American Type Culture Collection strain 14578 as the exclusive strain for use as a biological weapon, according to Charles Duelfer.[29]
On May 25 1994, the U.S. Senate Banking Committee released a report in which it was stated that "pathogenic (meaning 'disease producing'), toxigenic (meaning 'poisonous'), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce." It added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."[30]
The report then detailed 70 shipments (including Bacillus anthracis) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."[31]
Donald Riegle, Chairman of the Senate committee that authored the aforementioned Riegle Report, said:
U.N. inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs. ... The executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record.


JUST SO YOU DONT GET CONFUSED AGAIN This was after the first Gulf war and why the UN started overseeing the dismantling of his WMD programs.



Quote:
"............Historically much like giving Small Pox infected blankets to Native Americans.for example YOU KNOW ( REAL HUMAN BEINGS)"


Huh, you have proof of this? whacky statement here.
OK I should have said that the constant braying about Saddam Gassing "HIS OWN PEOPLE" was contextually incorrect. Much like the Rumor about British troops in the colonial US giving small pox infected blankets to the Indians. It is believed that indeed some infected blankets and or cloth were given but its never been proven to be intentional bio warfare .

"Wrong- I never once mentioned any Personal gain for BUSH or acquisition for oil companies"
Quote:
Actually, the oil part was for others who had mentioned a war for oil. You give yourself too much credit.
Silly me, in that you had quoted me and you failed to state Others in your little rant .


Quote:
" -IN FACT -I never mentioned Bush or Republicans period - once again- wrong poster
So the entire rest of that rant is not only irrelevant, in terms of my actual post, its ridiculous...."

My entire post doesn't have to be intended for you. get hold of yourself.
If its not intended for me then put it in a different post,not directed at me by Quotation, or clearly state that its for others.. I'll certainly try to get hold of myself but You give me way to much credit- Here a Hint - In fact I am Not a mind reader .


Quote:
Did you read my post, obviously not. I said "HOW LONG BEFORE SUPPLY AND DEMAND HOOKED UP?"
So you are suggesting WE went to War on the Speculation of some possible future connection developing
Quote:
I didn't say there had been connections in the past, though I do recall there being some found.
In fact one officer in the Iraq military was suspected of some kind of connection.


I stated
"Iraq more of a threat than the weapons (free for all) in Africa ? Not really, highly debatable at best."

Quote:
Please, that's just silly. saddam had a
Again debatable because from the Black market in Africa a Terrorist can obtain conventional, bio and chem weapons. Which means as you said your self
Quote:
"And you don't have to have missles to get wmd's delivered to countries. Terrorists can do the job."
Which means Africa was and is just as big a threat,
"
Quote:
jet air force, hundreds of tanks, scud missles, don't make me laugh."
heh Dont be ridiculious there is not a chance in hell Saddam could do any thing to the US mainland with those weapons. Period

HOWEVER as I said twice before What HE could do with those weapons is Completely destabilize the Gulf region AND guess WHAT . I am not the only one who thought this.

Did your credible news source give you this tid bit that. Fear of destabilization was why the US backed aided and supplied Saddam in the first place and that aid put him in the power position he was in . Then after losing control of him because He turned out to be unstable and deranged . Its also why we decided to take him out. If thats not nicy nicy enough for you thats your problem ????????????????? I know you wont believe my "child like" perception so here ya go

Diplomatic relations with Iraq had been severed shortly after the 1967 Arab-Israeli Six-Day War. A decade later, following a series of major political developments, particularly after the Iranian Revolution and the seizure of embassy staff in the 1979–81 Iran hostage crisis, President Jimmy Carter ordered a review of American policy toward Iraq.
According to Kenneth R. Timmerman, the "Islamic revolution in Iran upset the entire strategic equation in the region. America's principle ally in the Gulf, the Shah, was swept aside overnight, and no one else on the horizon could replace him as the guarantor of U.S. interests in the region."[4]
During the crisis, Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein attempted to take advantage of the disorder of the Revolution, the weakness of the Iranian military and the revolution's antagonism with Western governments. The once-strong Iranian military had been disbanded during the revolt and with the Shah ousted, Hussein had ambitions to position himself as the new strong man of the Middle East. "He condemned the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and signed an alliance with Saudi Arabia to block the Soviet-backed attempt to take over North Yemen. In 1979 he also allowed the CIA, which he had once so virulently attacked, to open an office in Baghdad."[7] Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor to President Carter, "began to look more favorably toward Saddam Hussein as a potential counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini and as a force to contain Soviet expansionism in the region."


Which is why this took place


Starting in 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the United States made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, normalizing relations with the government, supplying it with economic aid, counter-insurgency training, operational intelligence on the battlefield, and weapons.[13][3]
President Ronald Reagan initiated a strategic opening to Iraq, signing National Security Decision Directive 4-82 and selecting Donald Rumsfeld as his emissary to Hussein, whom he visited in December 1983 and March 1984.[14] According to U.S. ambassador Peter W. Galbraith, far from winning the conflict, "the Reagan administration was afraid Iraq might actually lose."[15]
In 1982, Iraq was removed from a list of State Sponsors of Terrorism to ease the transfer of dual-use technology to that country. According to investigative journalist Alan Friedman, Secretary of State Alexander Haig was "upset at the fact that the decision had been made at the White House, even though the State Department was responsible for the list."[3] "I was not consulted," Haig is said to have complained.
Howard Teicher served on the National Security Council as director of Political-Military Affairs. He accompanied Rumsfeld to Baghdad in 1983.[16] According to his 1995 affidavit and separate interviews with former Reagan and Bush administration officials, the Central Intelligence Agency secretly directed armaments and hi-tech components to Iraq through false fronts and friendly third parties such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kuwait, and they quietly encouraged rogue arms dealers and other private military companies to do the same:
[T]he United States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required. The United States also provided strategic operational advice to the Iraqis to better use their assets in combat... The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq. My notes, memoranda and other documents in my NSC files show or tend to show that the CIA knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, munitions and vehicles to Iraq.[17]





Quote:
No, you compared going there as being wrong because of the simple number of people being killed elsewhere, a very, let's say,. child like conception of what morality and goals the miltitary should have.
Wrong again, do not put words in my mouth and do not tie me to your delusions.. Here in fact is my statement NOTE THE WORD IF "
"IF defense of freedom and Human rights is in fact the primary reason for US military Actions (As opposed to say defense of major resource supply) " Which BTW was in answer to this post which was not yours .
"In the meantime, just about wherever you live on this planet, America is providing defense for you."
seems as if gettin' ahold of oneself is needed universally









"It simply seems to allow your ability to ignore what was actually said and concoct a ridiculous non applicable retort"
Quote:
Ridiculous. You questioned the reasons that the US went to iraq instead of Africa and hinted that it was an immoral decision,
Wrong again I made no statement,no hit, no subtext what so ever as to the moral Period. Are you delusional
Quote:
I gave you the reasons. learn to accept the truth.
You gave sound bite rhetoric. how about you attempt to keep at least one foot in reality and discuss what I actually said ????
Old 31st March 2010
  #58
Lives for gear
 
KevWind's Avatar
[QUOTE=GZsound;5261205]
Quote:
Herein lies a very basic problem with those who rely on dogma instead of facts.
Absolutely correct
Quote:
If you do even the smallest amount of research, you will find that a very large majority of our military actions are for humanitarian purposes.
I did not say they weren't I said they MAY be secondary And I believe its Jeff Guitar that said that Humanitarian missions were not the military's job . But it bring us right back to the question IF that's the criteria for the mission then WHY Iraq and not Rwanda the humanitarian considerations in Rwanda were Galatic by comparison . Again I AM NOT making a personal value judgement I am saying History will and should ask this question .
Quote:
I would be happy to post for you all the military actions during the Clinton administration...for example, and you would be amazed at the number of humanitarian missions our armed forces carry out.

In fact, here...you may do your own research.

frontline: the clinton years: chronology | PBS

Our military provides protection for the world. We have hundreds of thousands of military posted around the world to provide protection to our allies.
And you do not think that protection also serves our interests, monetarily as well as strategically.
Quote:
And those who think we fight for oil need to step up and show us the money. Where IS all that oil? Where is the Iraqi oil we supposedly "own"? The oil companies had to bid on that oil on the open market.
I dont know about others but I never once said we invaded Iraq to acquire oil. I said that if Saddam were destabilize the region that would be of dire enough consequence to fall into the category of Direct threat to To the US. BUT since you brought up money, like to make a guess as to what $ have been made by US defense contractors in this war starting with Halliburton . No I dont think that's the reason but its got to be huge
Quote:
Again, the misinformation surrounding our military is staggering. These are our friends, neighbors, fathers, children and relatives. They deserve our respect for their service. Without them none of us would be allowed to even speak our opinions.
Read my post I agree but that has nothing to do with what what I was posting about
Quote:
Let's stop being so silly about it.
great idea Lets... I think ther were very valid reasons why we invaded Iraq I just refuse to white wash them for political correctness . Im done, think about or don't its been beat to death .
Old 31st March 2010
  #59
Lives for gear
 
twentyhertz's Avatar
 

Now all we need are some arguments about religion in here. Countdown until this thread is removed....

10
9
8
Old 1st April 2010
  #60
Lives for gear
 

To the op - concerning guitars, I believe the environmental impact between one guitar from a company advertising green business practices, and any other random guitar company would be basically zero. And it would more than likely lead you to purchase an instrument that is less than optimal for your needs. This will most likely require it's eventual replacement. If the fact that the manufacturing of crap is inherently harmful to the environment concerns you, then the answer is to buy less crap. So consider buying the best, most appropriate instrument you can. Maybe a used example as it's already here, and keep it and play it untill it falls apart. good luck.
Top Mentioned Products
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
nobtwiddler / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
3
Poopants / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
3
duncansound / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
0
yarrick19 / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
4
nobtwiddler / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
0

Forum Jump
Forum Jump