5,911 Forum Posts by "Jimsween"
At 4/14/06 08:18 PM, red_skunk wrote: jimsween jimsween jimsween
What?
At 10/30/05 05:47 AM, R3DSK4NK wrote:Which ones?What do you mean which ones? A quick google found that there were at least ten people who claim to have witnessed the scene (although no one actually saw who fired at who, who fired first, etc.). At least five claim to have seen another unidentified male fleeing the scene. How many witnesses actually testified at the trial sween?
Well then I don't know what your talking about, as far as I know theres only 7 witnesses. Of whom none say that they saw someone fleeing the scene.
Statistics like that can easily be found and compiled. Thirty-one death penalties were handed down under his watch. This is a significant number, I've read that it's the most that a judge in PA has presided over. If you have contrary information, then please present it.
No, thats completely wrong. No such statistics can be found. Thats a lie, plain and simple. Every non-biased site will agree that no such statistics exist. For one, just check the wikipedia entry.
Anthony Jackson? Mumia had him for a while, found him inadequete, represented himself for all of two seconds, then Jackson was reinstated by the judge's ruling. Anthony Jackson was totally unprepared for the trial. He didn't interview any of the witnesses he put on the stand before hand, failed to provide exculpatory evidence, did not call any witnesses during the penalty phase, and has by now admitted that he was woefully incompetent. Signing an affidavit that says so. He was later disbarred.
No, thats not true. Again, you must be reading this from some propaganda website. Mumia was allowed to represent himself for a while but was stopped after disruptive courtroom behavior.
And do you have a source for his being disbarred, or any of the other information you just gave? Or are you just repeating all of this from the same 'free mumia' website?
It was in another later trial.
I assume so, but even then I can't simply trust a fact like that, in this case the supporters of Mumia have lied many times.
I don't pretend to know one way or the other in this case, sween. I tried to highlight a few questionable aspects. Amnesty International's page on the trial gives a decent overview of some of the oddities. I would say a new trial is in order. This was all that I was getting at.
If you don't claim to know alot about the case then how can you so easily disagree with several appellate courts who all upheld the verdict so easily?
At 10/30/05 09:09 PM, hellsgift wrote: then what gives us the right to have nuclear weapons in the first place? if nobody else is allowed to have weapons of mass destruction, then what makes us so special?
We already have them. It would be best if nobody had them, but since people already do have them theres really no way to make them get rid of them, so the best option is to make sure nobody new gets them.
Nobody has a right to nuclear weapons, that would just be dumb.
At 10/28/05 12:56 AM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: The drop in the price of lumber is equally as much the doing of US companies as it is of Candaian companies, as our market share has nto changed prior to the tariff.
Subject imports would be from the US, wouldn't it?
And I will clarify for you why the pannel told USDOC to go back and recalculate. They just dont say do it over agian, they point out all the errors and what they have to change then give them 60 days to re-do and bring it back. Basically here are some of the errors the USDOC has made (I have actually read the pannels findings and this is based off of whatthey wrote in their report).
Alright, I'll concede those errors, but concerning the biggest error (adjusting for Canadian prices) theres not much guiding. I've no doubt that the US is just refusing to do recalculations simply because they don't want to reduce the tarrifs at all, it just seems dumb that NAFTA wont do it themselves, their obviously looking for a number they could easily just give it.
At 10/28/05 01:42 AM, bcdemon wrote: Well, lets see here, NAFTA says the tarifs are too high. To comply would be to drop or lower the tarifs, to defy would be to charge the same tarifs that NAFTA ruled too high.
Hey, can ya read? Hmm? NAFTA did not specify how high. They did not yet ask to drop the tarrifs either. They asked for us to make recalculations, so all were guilty of as of now is not making recalculations, something NAFTA could easily do at that.
May be defying WTO rulings in this situation, but I don't think the WTO has much concern in the matters of NAFTA. And I'm not sure which NAFTA rulings we are defying, as far as I know, we have won all the NAFTA rulings on this issue. Unless of course you're talking about the extremely low stumpage fees that some parts of BC pay, which is only done so the timber can get cut down before the Pine Beetle destroys it.
You haven't won any NAFTA rulings. And no matter what the justification, its still a subsidy, which violates our free-trade agreement. It's the same as how the US gave subsidies to its' cotton farmers because it's harder to grow cotton in America.
According to NAFTA the US tarifs are way to large, even though the WTO doesn't see this as a problem. You see where I am going with this yet? Ok so, between US and Brazil you have the WTO, and on thier rules tarifs up the ying yang are hunky dory. But between Canada and the US we have NAFTA, who has ruled that the high tarifs are wrong.
NAFTA never used the phrase 'way too large'. And they may very well be large, that doesn't mean the ruling is in favor of Canada, that would just mean we are both wrong.
And the WTO isn't a US/Brazil thing, we have a previous trade agreement in reference to cotton along the same lines of NAFTA's, which is why the two can be compared.
Canada is right in its case with USA according to NAFTA rules.
USA is correct in its case with Brazil according to WTO rules.
If we didn't have NAFTA, then USA would be correct in both situations.
Gah, no. Now youre just saying that because you want Canada to be right. And theres no reason why NAFTA would make this case any different than the Brazil one.
Jesus christ skunk, please tell me this is a joke. It sounds like you just read some propaganda site and decided it was all true.
At 10/29/05 01:20 PM, red_skunk wrote: there is no conclusive evidence (ie. the bullet was a different caliber than the gun found on Mumia)
Incorrect. Youre talking about what the corener wrote on the report, which he testified was just a guess and not based on any ballistics training. Every expert since then, even Mumias own ones, have testified that it was a .38 that made the wound.
eye witnesses saw someone else fleeing the scene,
Which ones?
the judge was a former police officer (who has sentenced more men to die than any other judge in the country),
Right, since when was this grounds for an appeal? It's fair by any standard of law, if you feel our system is incorrect and that we should use a computer or something as a judge thats an entirely different issue.
Oh and actually, thats blatantly false. There are no such statistics on Sabo and there is no way such statistics could be found.
his public attorney was incompetent,
He chose his public attourney, and at that, he chose a good one, which twenty murder cases under his belt with only 6 convictions. He chose later to represent himself.
the DA was later reprimanded for withholding evidence.
I've not heard of this, do you have any sources?
Oh, and Mumia denies killing him,
Well shit, who would have thought?
and there is another man who has confessed to the shooting.
For whom no evidence can be found that he was even there, and his memory of the case is at odds with numerous known facts. Any time a case becomes famous you get whackos confessing.
At 10/27/05 07:57 PM, bcdemon wrote: Dur Dur ok Jimminy. Your country is defying NAFTA rulings, and you support that....
How so? Which ruling exactly? All I can see is that NAFTA asked us to make a recalculation without specifying a desired answer.
And at that, your country is defying both NAFTA rulings and WTO rulings.
I know they are using the same argument Canada is, what's your point? Brazil isn't a part of NAFTA.
That doesn't at all apply, if anything it makes the US more correct, since there isn't even a free trade agreement. I can't fathom why you would even decide to include that, it doesn't even contain an argument that could support your case.
I did read the case fuktard. US subsidizes it's cotton industry which in turn is flooding the market and hurting Brazils cotton industry.
Well now that you have said "I know" and "I did read the case" it's obvious you read it. You must have just been confused when you posted. And confused again now, cause thats the same argument the US is making in the Canada case. So it would seem as if you can't make up your mind as to who is right.
Yeah, you see, a nuclear missile, can kill millions of people. When it comes to something like that, you don't need to be fair, thats just stupid.
Theres no reason anyone else should get nuclear missiles, were trying to minimize the amount of people who are able to destroy the world.
At 10/27/05 12:05 AM, bcdemon wrote: LOL, Brazil has a good idea:
LOL you're dumb. You can't advocate international law and then support countries who threaten it's very existence because they're mad about a trade dispute. Apperantly it's ok to be a hypocrite as long as your siding against the US.
The USA is ignoring WTO rulings on the Brazil/US cotton trade that sided with Brazil.
The US is using the exact same argument in this case that Canada is using in the softwood one. It has to be right in at least one of them.
I guess it was facetious of me to think that you actually would have read about the case before you took your position on it, I mean, it's about the US, of course you would side with Brazil.
At 10/27/05 01:10 AM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: Its not up to the pannel to say what the level shoudl be, it said the tariff was wrong and the USDOC needed to go back to the drawing board and re-do the tariff.
Who says its not up to the panel? It is indeed up to the panel, otherwise the US has absolutely no idea how they should calculate and likely they would just end up going back again and again to see if it's right yet. Pretty fucking dumb sounding.
I am assuming you mean for the eyars prior to the implementation of the US tarrifs? How about because there was no law back then regarding trade between Canada and the US. HAd there been no NAFTA this would have been legal (the tariffs). Im not sure if this answered what youawere asking, but let me know and I can try to explain it better.
No, there was an agreement then. I'm talking about after the first agreement expired but before we issued the tarrif.
I believe they found that the raw material cost was lower, but we arent talking about shipping logs, we are talking about processed wood, and the NAFTA pannel found that there was no subsidy to the finish product that gave CAnada an UNfair advantage in the US market. It all comes down to does Canada have an unfair advantage as a result of a subsidy, and the answer is no. Then the US added a dumping fee (selling something lower than production cost), and it was found that Canadian softwood was not being sold below market levels as a result of a subsidy or other assitance, simply put, Canada was able to produce wood at a cheaper cost than Americans, and not becasue of any gov't subsidy.
Yeah, thats not correct at all. First off, nobody ever mentioned unfair advantage, so I don't know why you keep using that term. It comes down to if Canadian softwood lumber companies recieve a benefit over US companies because of the lower fees. NAFTA did not say that they did not, NAFTA simply said that the US's calculations that they said proved the Canadians had an advantage were incorrect and that a recalculation had to be done.
Your claims as to what was 'found' are baseless, and likely only your opinion on the matter.
I'm not sure how you can prove this.
The same way you would prove that the Canadian lumber industry suffered injuries, except backwards. It's an unexact science either way.
You dont plea bargin after you get convicted. If the US had won would they still want to sit and the table? Canada is willing to come to the table, but only if the US shows in someway they respect the decisions made by these pannels which they expect others to abide by.
The US wasn't convicted, just read the deciscion, if anything, it was aquitted by the most recent WTO panel.
At 10/26/05 11:13 PM, JediMcPimp wrote: If the American economy is so shaky that 5 Billion dollars would collapse it, than you guys shouldn't be in Iraq. How many billions of dollars have been spent over there "liberating" the people when your own nation is the one that needs saving.
Thats not what I was saying at all. It was in reference to an oil embargo from Canada not the 5 billion.
At 10/26/05 09:48 PM, Elfer wrote: No, what NAFTA said is that "US duties on softwood lumber are still unreasonably high, despite industry subsidy"
Theres no point in trying to lie I have the quote right here and you just saw someone ask for it,
"A NAFTA decision on August 13, 2003 was considered a partial victory for the Canadian side. A panel ruled that, while the Canadian lumber industry is subsidized, the 18 per cent tariff imposed on softwood lumber by the United States is too high. While the ruling didn’t throw out the duty imposed more than a year earlier, it ordered the U.S. Commerce Department to review its position."
That does indeed say that the duties are incorrect, but it also says that Canada was wrong in having tarrifs. Later rulings by the WTO have said that the US was justified in putting tarrifs.
At 10/26/05 07:36 PM, deurwaarder wrote: The US is going to pay that money because the WTO has no choice but to agree with Canada. clear violation.
Funny, cause they just disagreed.
http://www.cbc.ca/st..d_loss_20050830.html
Call me crazy, but it's almost as if people are contributing opinions without even knowing what exactly the issue is. This is hardly at all a black and white situation, the only way someone could say that it is is by being grossly misinformed.
At 10/26/05 07:35 PM, RedScorpion wrote: Right, no one has said anything about an 'embargo'.
That was indeed the central point of this topic, just check the first post.
Our people would fight for every inch of land from any foriegn enemy, include our closest friend - Not unlike if the US ever got invaded by a foriegn enemy.
We say that now, but countries with just as much patriotism have submitted in the past. It takes alot of motivation to start Guerilla warfare, even more to start terroristic warfare, I would think it would be pretty hard to get people to murder civilians.
You'd be surprised how powerful our nationalism would stand to an invasion by our closest friends. No, we would not submit to terrorism - but you could be assured that we would not give up our country so easily. In a sense, this would be much like a civil war, just because our systems are so intertwined. (P.S. - Don't refer to Canadians as terrorists...)
At its height, nationalism failed to spur terrorism. WW1 ended the moment the armies surrendered, without resistance.
Is this not a contradiction, when the US invades and deals with affairs overseas?
I don't see your point.
How about NATO?
You mean the organisation whose sole purpose for existing was to fight against the Soviet Union in case of war? What about it?
What about the efforts by numerous countries to help the war on terrorism, even though they did not get attacked themselves (including Canada)?
Political relations means alot.
The world is caring very much about the rest of the world right now, and there are several reasons. The media reports on other places, humanitarian aid is at a precidented height, blah blah blah - even people caring for whats going on in africa, china, russia, and everywhere else.
People have no problem giving money, but people have a problem giving thier lives, and thier livelyhood, for a cause they can't relate to.
Why do you think the world would not care if the US invades its closest friend, its neighbour, when a solution could be come about through diplomatic means? War should always be considered as a last resort - not a problem-solving tool. Otherwise, please explain why it should be this way - economic security can be satisfied by less voracious means.
An embargo is one of the ultimate acts of hostility. At that point, diplomatic relations have no doubt broken down. Yes its just a matter of 5 billion, but if the US were to dish out money anytime someone threatened they would be out of money.
I guess this includes yourself, no? When you start to explain why it would be best to destroy your best friend, then I really doubt you do care about anything. Hell, lets destroy anyone who we have problems with!! This sort of thinking really puts me off.
A best friend that is willing to risk the collapse of your economy over tarrifs isn't much of a friend.
Who says we are embargo'in? Who has said we are going to start an embargo? No one. 'Unlike the Canadian embargo, etc. etc."
I'm not suggesting that it is happening, I'm countering arguments that it should be done.
At 10/26/05 07:36 PM, RedScorpion wrote: Quote your source please.
It's your source.
"A NAFTA decision on August 13, 2003 was considered a partial victory for the Canadian side. A panel ruled that, while the Canadian lumber industry is subsidized, the 18 per cent tariff imposed on softwood lumber by the United States is too high. While the ruling didn’t throw out the duty imposed more than a year earlier, it ordered the U.S. Commerce Department to review its position."
It is in fact a subsidy, so the US is correct. The US is still overcompensating but no figure was given as to by how much so to quantify a sum of money is very premature at this point.
At 10/26/05 07:19 PM, -poxpower- wrote: there, that sure helped settle things <3
I think this thread has more than enough Canadian debators already.
No wait, sorry, that implies that most Canadians in this thread have actually been debating, rather than just acting like fools as per your previous post. My mistake.
At 10/26/05 06:24 PM, Elfer wrote: Not if I took it from them, got caught, taken to court, and had the court order me to give the wallet back.
And how exactly is that what happened? NAFTA said Canada is wrong.
At 10/26/05 05:29 PM, Elfer wrote: How about this Jim:
Wars cost more than $5 billion.
So if someone came up to you and took your wallet, would you not fight to get it back?
I'm not saying it's smart, its dumb, it's dumb that Canada would threaten an embargo too. But you simply can't crumble every time a country threatens you.
At 10/26/05 05:20 PM, Imperator wrote: And jimsween:
What the hell were the "Greek wars"?
Well, mostly the peloponessian war, but there were other wars between the greek city states.
And as far as Punic Wars, I personally wouldn't count Rome as a democracy, although there are clearly democratic concepts within its government....but that's just a personal opinion based on what I know about the subject.
There were varying levels of democracy, but at its root level, there were indeed elections. And the elected officials held much of the power.
At 10/26/05 02:58 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: Jimsween, what does pf mean in your post responding to mine about injuries?
Of.
At 10/26/05 10:25 AM, Arnino_Storm wrote: No, it doesn't. The first decision said that. The two ones that followed clearly said that Canada was right in this. Next time, read the text.
I'm sorry to make you look like a douchebag but the third one does not at all say that. It simply says the US appeal against the first NAFTA deciscion was denied.
Wait, I guess I'm not that sorry, you rightfully deserve to look like a douchebag, next time don't be one.
This whole problem shows that there's omethign wrong with Canadian trade. We've got to diversify our trades, because if we continue to trade so much with America and not much with others, we're economically linked to them. Wich isn't a good thing.
Crazy, who ever thought of being economically linked to your neighbors? It's not as if it costs money to transport things over long distances.
At 10/26/05 02:36 AM, BigBlueBalls wrote: Yeah and I suppose we could list Germany as well, since Hitler was democratically elected. Hey Saddam was elected, I guess the last Iraq war was two democracies too. I'm not talking about wars on democracies that decended into a dictatorship here. Canada isn't exactly a dictatorship, nor are we ethnically cleansing our citizens like Milosevic. Not one of those countries you listed even come close to Canada's democracy and have nearly as many allies as Canada. Also, civil wars don't count as two democratic nations fighting either. Otherwise we could list EVERY civil war as a war between democracies.
Not all of those were even democracies that descended into dictatorships. And of the ones listed they didnt even really descend into dictatorships, the terms of the election were for that time.
There's no point, the argument is a joke. Why start a war,
Because that sort of embargo could easily collapse the economy.
causing the death of millions,
Nice number from out of nowhere. Unlikely.
essentially turning Canadians into terrorists when we live on your border
Also unlikely, Canadians don't have the will to turn into terrorists.
turn the world against you,
You highly overestimate how much the world cares about the rest of the world. You also highly overestimate how good US relations are with any countries as is.
even turn much of the U.S. against the other half (I know many Americans who would side with Canada)
You overestimate how much Americans actually care about anything.
and finally trash your own economy.
Lets keep in mind Canada would be losing 80% of both your imports and exports, you've no room to argue when it comes to ruining your economy.
All this over oil shortages? Give me a break. The U.S. would just have to buy more from other countries and yes it would raise the costs, but that's just enough to 'hurt' the U.S. not cause it to crumble like a war with Canada would.
The cost of oil doubled because of a slight increase in demand over 3 years from developing countries, even though an entire new market for oil was opened up in Iraq. 19% would be devestating.
No we ignore arguments that involve 'U.S. bombing Canada' because it's a ridiculous notion that everyone knows the U.S. will never do. The gains won't be as much as the costs involved, that's why.
Unlike the Canadian embargo, in which the gains are one millionth of the costs.
At 10/26/05 01:14 AM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: The USDOC did review its position and lowered the tarriff by a few percent, then added anti-dumping duties I believe. The following hearings said the USDOC was still not meeting its requirements. Here is another quote from that article (next few paparagraphs following yours).
Ok, so whats your point? All of those highlight that both Canada and the US are in violation. They do say that NAFTA ordered the US to "recalculate" but that really only means NAFTA doesn't know what to do, otherwise they would have done the recalculations.
I'm not saying we are right no matter what, I ams aying what the final rulings from the ECC of NAFTA (the NAFTA Supreme Court if you will, and if I am correct the highger level pannels decsions nullify the previous rulings if the oppose eachother) and WTO have declared the tariffs illegal.
And they have also declared the subsidies illegal. If the US has to pay Canada back, then why doesn't Canada have to pay the US back for the years pf subsidies?
If you are going to argue that stumpage fees are providing goods or services below market prices then you must compare it to that market. You cant compare the market costs of the US and Canada. And thats what they said was wrogn with the USDOC calculations, is it wasnt going by Canadian market levels, but by US levels.
But they still found that even going by Canadian market levels the fees were low. They simply said the US estimates of how much lower they were were incorrect.
"What is injury?
Injury is caused by dumped or subsidized imports resulting in lost sales, reduced prices, lost market share, decreased profits, and other such difficulties for the injured industry."
A NAFTA pannel ruled that there was no injury to the US lumber market. I would give you the quote but its on my computer at school and I am home untill Friday.
There was no injury because the subsidies were already in place from the start. The damages still exist.
Two things required, a subsidy, and market injury due to the subsidy. However NAFTA pannels have found there to be no injury to the US market, so even if stumpage were to be seen as a subsidy, you still cannot impose CVD since there is no proven market injury.
And that would be the fatal flaw of NAFTA, it isn't equipped to deal with this situation, which is why the US wants negotiations.
At 10/26/05 12:30 AM, BigBlueBalls wrote: Oh many times eh? Name one time.
Greek Wars, 5th and 4th Centuries BCE
Punic Wars, 2nd and 3rd Centuries BCE
American Indian Wars, 1776-1890
Franco-American Naval War, 1797-1799
Franco-Roman War, 1849
American Civil War, 1861-65
Occupation of Veracruz, 1861-62
Spanish-American War, 1898
Anglo-Boer War, 1899-1901
Occupation of the Ruhr, 1923
Second World War, 1940-45 (vs. Finland)
First Indo-Pak War, 1947-49
Iran, Guatemala and Chile, 1953, 1954 and 1973
Lebanese Civil War, 1978, 1982
Croatian War of Independence, 1991-92
Border War, 1995
Kosovo War, 1999 (milosovic was democratically elected)
Fourth Indo-Pak War (Kargil War) 1999
The U.S. isn't going to start a war with Canada, get over yourself.
Or you could actually rebut my argument for as to why we would indeed start a war with Canada under the given circumstances.
I can't believe how bad some Americans can be at debating. Debates often decend into "oh yeah! we'll bomb you!", anytime they have nothing intelligent to bring to the table.
As apposed to the Canadian way of debating which is just.... ignore all arguments and claim superiority?
At 10/25/05 06:10 PM, mofomojo wrote: Ever hear of NATO?
What about it? It only exists because of the US, and it clearly can't be counted upon to protect member states, look at Turkey in the Iraq invasion.
Erm.. anyways. We could threaten the embargo at first and ask them nicely to repay us back th tariffs that are rightfully ours (NAFTA) and then if they don't comply we cut 'em off right in the middle of winter.
NAFTA is the one that said they weren't rightfully yours, the WTO did.
If they were to attack us it might actually be the first time that two democratic nations go to war.
Democratic nations have gone to war in the past many times.
Alot of us have family-relations to Americans. There wouldn't be enough public support to invade Canada. I'm sure at least the UK would be on our side in the hypothetical situation. The trade dispute needs to settle with the abolishment of the tariffs and the repayment.
If you take away oil and natural gas in the middle of winter there would certainly be enough support, no matter how many people have relatives. Embargos, no matter how 'rightfull' they have been, have been greeted with nothing but hostility from civilians. It carries the same stigma as a direct attack, thier livelyhood is threatened just the same.
Hey, if they don't want it in thier hair then they should just swallow.
At 10/25/05 02:31 AM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: They actually said though allthough it was an advantage, it did not constitute a subsidy, and therefore the tarrifs imposed upon softwood for this reason were null and void.
"A NAFTA decision on August 13, 2003 was considered a partial victory for the Canadian side. A panel ruled that, while the Canadian lumber industry is subsidized, the 18 per cent tariff imposed on softwood lumber by the United States is too high. While the ruling didn’t throw out the duty imposed more than a year earlier, it ordered the U.S. Commerce Department to review its position."
If anything, this highlights how difficult an organization like NAFTA is to manage, and that Free Trade is a far more complex issue than simply having tarrifs or not.Its not super complex, a few basic rules, its when poeple dont abide by the rules that there are problems.
Okay, clearly you didn't read whats happening then. If your going to say CANADA IS RIGHT to no matter what I write then why bother writing.
Canada charges a lower than normal amount for companies to harvest on public land. Thats a financial advantage, and a de facto subsidy. The question here is if it can be considered a subsidy or not, the US and NAFTA say yes, WTO and Canada say no.
I see no possible way the Iraq war has made oil prices higher. Lower and normal are really the only options.
At 10/3/05 01:15 AM, bcdemon wrote: OPEC does supply alot of oil, but if they are at near full production levels, then how can they supply more?
By building more oil pumps. But they don't because this way they get more bang for thier buck, they are in no hurry to run out of oil.
If the oil refining companies in North America had built more refineries in the last 25 years then the supply of gasoline would be alot higher, hence dropping the price of gasoline. But that would also cut into the refineries record profits they are experiencing nowadays.
Thats innacurate, the oil refineries are refining all of the crude that there is, building more refinieries will not increase output.
At 10/25/05 12:12 AM, RedScorpion wrote: Why do people jump to invasion over this....
Because people jump to embargo over this.
It would seem as if, from what you wrote, that neither side is correct. The WTO and NAFTA both said that Canada was unfairly giving it's softwood a financial advantage, but they also said that the US made it's tarrifs too large in response to that. So rather, instead of us needing to remove tarrifs, we would be required to just have slightly smaller ones.
If anything, this highlights how difficult an organization like NAFTA is to manage, and that Free Trade is a far more complex issue than simply having tarrifs or not.
