It's been said better up at the top now, but my point was exactly that: if we want to prevent this specific scenario, we need a law that says "company that does business in the US must not do Y", rather than saying "Y is illegal here, so lets sue company that does business in the US for doing Y elsewhere."
I don't understand the objection. It's not like you suddenly lose all benefits and protections of US citizenship when you step over the border. If you don't want to follow these laws, move your company and renounce your citizenship. If you're not willing to do that then you need to follow the rules.
If you would like to talk about the FCPA, I never mentioned my objection.
The objection is that it undermines competitiveness in corrupt business environments. Business environments that are inherently corrupt whether the US entity participates or not. Kickbacks are a way of doing business in many jurisdictions, and then the US government levies a charge against you that is solved with: YOU GUESSED IT, ANOTHER KICKBACK. But its okay because the SEC and DOJ call it a settlement.
A totally unnecessary law that is enforced at the discretion of the administration.
I understand your point about lawsuit settlements being useless and hypocritical, but your main point about competitiveness is obviously not really relevant. There are tons of laws that undermine US business competitiveness in global markets. There are tons of laws that undermine domestic competitiveness too, that's just how our society is set up. Profit is not our first priority.
Anyway, when I referred to your "objection", it seemed like you were saying any laws affecting business outside the country are pointless and wrong. I don't think I know enough about the FCPA to discuss it specifically.