Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 20th Jun 2009 15:57 UTC
Internet & Networking The relationship between the United States government and ICANN, the private non-profit corporation which oversees the assignment of domain names, has often been a thorn in the eyes of the European Union. A recent document issued by the European Commission again advocates a change in internet oversight - but at the same time, the document also states that ICANN has actually been doing a pretty good job.
Order by: Score:
-
by Radio on Sat 20th Jun 2009 17:04 UTC
Radio
Member since:
2009-06-20

If memory serves right, the EU does not push for having control over the ICANN too, but would prefer a UN oversight, or a merge with the International Telecommunication Union.

The current system is good, but is not robust to a change of heart of the US gov.

The ICANN is a interesting demonstration that a disinterested, private monopolistic organisation can be efficient. It is a thorn in the eye of both liberal economists and state control.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by werfu
by werfu on Sat 20th Jun 2009 17:28 UTC
werfu
Member since:
2005-09-15

Actually the ICANN have been doing fine exception on some sensitive issues in the US. Just think about the XXX domain name. I think requiring by law that all domains hosting adult content having to be registred by this domain name extension is logical. But both the sex industries and those stupid right-wing religious lobbists opposed the move, one saying the opposite of other. Having the ICANN not overseen by the (puritanical) US government would lead to some great improvement and would at the same time garantee (to some degree) freedom of the net.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by werfu
by darknexus on Sat 20th Jun 2009 17:56 UTC in reply to "Comment by werfu"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

And who would be overseeing it if the U.S government wasn't? You can bet that if it wasn't the U.S it'd be some other government instead. It's not that I particularly trust or admire our government here in the states--far from it, in fact--but I'd rather have it be our government than one in favor of a great deal more censorship and control. The internet is one of the few things these days with very little government control, and I'd prefer it were kept that way. To that end, it would probably be best if no government or international group such as the U.N were able to oversee it, but that just isn't possible. I trust them less than I trust our own government these days, although since the UN is rarely able to come to any decisions in any reasonable amount of time perhaps it would end up being the equivalent of no oversight.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Comment by werfu
by gustl on Mon 22nd Jun 2009 19:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by werfu"
gustl Member since:
2006-01-19

I partly agree.

Involving the EU would definitely not be a problem, think about all the good work it is doing regarding unhealthy markets (cracking down on illegal monopoly expansion by Microsoft) which the US government refused to do.

But I would rather have the US government oversee the ICANN for another 1000 years than letting someone appointed by the current Chinese government near it.

Let's face it. If every country in the world had one voice (how else could it be if a change is made), and the question of censorship is brought up, the countries upholding the right to free speech would be easily outnumbered by dictators.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by werfu
by ricegf on Sun 21st Jun 2009 11:42 UTC in reply to "Comment by werfu"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

I guess I'm one of those "stupid right-wing religious lobbists (sic)" opposed to a .xxx domain. At least, I find the idea stupid on its face.

Who exactly would define "adult content"? Is GoDaddy.com "adult" enough? Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition? Victoria's Secret? Playboy? Hustler? Bianca's Dungeon?

How long would it take before liberal zealots claim that pro-family (read: anti-gay marraige) sites are "adult"? Should they be relegated to "shameful" domains, as Dr. Laura was banned from Canadian airwaves for daring to call homosexuality "abnormal"? Howzabaout banning all those sites that oppose abortion? Or those "shameful" anti-Obama sites?

And who would enforce penalties for "adult content" that was posted outside the .xxx domain? Do we want the USA to enforce it's idea of morality on the EU? Or, God help us, the UN to define "morality" for the world, and enforce penalties against individual citizens of their respective countries?

Stupid, stupid, stupid. I have a much better idea. How about we stick with... liberty?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by werfu
by werfu on Sun 21st Jun 2009 12:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by werfu"
werfu Member since:
2005-09-15

Adult content is adult content, you know what I mean. Except in case of science or art, picture of a naked person is adult content. The XXX as been an attribute to qualified this kind of content for a while. I don't know why we should redefine it now. Yes, a web site of girl in swimsuit is adult oriented, but it is not pornography.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by werfu
by jack_perry on Sun 21st Jun 2009 14:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by werfu"
jack_perry Member since:
2005-07-06

Adult content is adult content, you know what I mean. Except in case of science or art, picture of a naked person is adult content.

Ah yes, the "I know it when I see it" principle of judging obscenity.

Okay... suppose I want to post naked pictures of my 1- and 2-year old daughters to my personal web page, so that my parents can look at them. (I don't want to do this, but some European cultures like images of naked children at that age, and probably some non-European cultures do, too.)

As it happens, my personal web page is indexed by a web browser, and so people from all over the world can see it. Some perv finds my web page, downloads the images, then uploads them to one of the more unsavory mailing lists.

An FBI officer monitoring this list stumbles across the images; manages to trace them to my website, and an overzealous prosecutor strings me up for not posting them on the XXX domain. A lot of people, incited by newspaper op-eds and others, label me as a monster and demand my head.

It is art? is it science? I don't think either applies. So what is it?

BTW I think that some pictures of girls in swimsuits are pornography. Context matters, and by now I can no longer trust a judge to use his head when making the call.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by werfu
by ricegf on Sun 21st Jun 2009 20:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by werfu"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

"Adult content is adult content, you know what I mean."

I most certainly do not, and you KNOW I do not - otherwise, you would not have immediately proceeded to try to define it thus:

"Except in case of science or art, picture of a naked person is adult content..."

So photos of the Holocaust, which are neither science nor art, but history, should be relegated to the .xxx domain? Does this not demonstrate to you unequivocably why you're on a fool's errand here?

You see, the problem with your definition is that it begs the question it tries to answer. What's "art"?What's "science"?

Yes, I thought so. You know THAT when you see it, too.

Sorry, not willing to bet my freedom on a judge "seeing" things the way I do.

"I don't know why we should redefine it now."

We don't have to redefine it now - we have PLENTY of definitions! Even a cursory examination of reality (hint: start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography#Legal_status) shows that the legal definition of pornography is all over the map in various countries around the world. Heck, do you really think the definition of pornography in San Fransisco, CA and Bovina, MS (which, per the Supreme Court, is defined by "community standards") are the same? Even in the USA we're all over the map!

Thus, trying to legislate "pornography" (whatever THAT is) into a .xxx domain in a worldwide medium such as the Internet is, to use your word, "stupid".

Even as a "religious fanatic" of the Christian persuasion, I'll continue to advocate and fight for liberty on the Internet. It works better every time.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by werfu
by JAlexoid on Sun 21st Jun 2009 20:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by werfu"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

So photos of the Holocaust, which are neither science nor art, but history, should be relegated to the .xxx domain?


FYI: History is a social science.
So any "photos of the Holocaust" would fall under definition of science.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by werfu
by oakgrove on Sun 21st Jun 2009 19:07 UTC in reply to "Comment by werfu"
oakgrove Member since:
2009-06-21

Wow, I created an account just tell you how much of an idiot you are. It's 'tards like you that would have us all rush headlong straight into full blown internet censorship. Think about it, dummy, if you relagate all "objectionable" content to a particular domain, it is trivial for the powers that be to simply block that domain. What's next? Political speech? Religious speech? Whatever a particular administration finds distasteful? The US government made a masterstroke in blocking this. You and people like you are completely thoughtless lemmings.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by werfu
by JAlexoid on Sun 21st Jun 2009 20:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by werfu"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

FYI: All countries, except for anarchic ones, censor pornography.
The xxx domain names, would help us identify those sites very easy. And I would be all for it.
But maybe, you represent those people that actually benefit from pornographic cybersquatting.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by werfu
by Tuishimi on Mon 22nd Jun 2009 03:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by werfu"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Ooo! Good one! Someone has a viewpoint counter to your own so you insult them (albeit in a passive-aggressive manner).

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by werfu
by mabhatter on Tue 23rd Jun 2009 04:10 UTC in reply to "Comment by werfu"
mabhatter Member since:
2005-07-17

Actually the ICANN have been doing fine exception on some sensitive issues in the US. Just think about the XXX domain name. I think requiring by law that all domains hosting adult content having to be registred by this domain name extension is logical. But both the sex industries and those stupid right-wing religious lobbists opposed the move, one saying the opposite of other. Having the ICANN not overseen by the (puritanical) US government would lead to some great improvement and would at the same time garantee (to some degree) freedom of the net.


That's a great reason to have exactly the situation under the US government. After all, the whole point of EU or UN control is to let every country legislate what is "XXX" material... once you classify speech you control it (and silence it) Once you classify XXX speech you might as well classify religious speech too, right! And political speech that's from Approved parties and speech that's not... it's just a "classification" By keeping ICANN a separate corporation, then it's free to protect free speech under US law... which is still generally the best at protecting free speech.

ICANN gives each country it's own domain initials to control anyway, and has nothing to do with serving content anyway. It's like blaming the power company for giving "bad people" house addresses.

The UN is the last place you want controlling the internet anyway... they're an organization composed of mostly non-democracies that view the US and North Korea as equal forms of government... it's all about "tending the serfs".

Reply Score: 2

UN Oversight?
by Evan on Sat 20th Jun 2009 17:52 UTC
Evan
Member since:
2006-01-18

I seriously hope that this is ignored. Until ICANN actually makes some big mistakes there is no need for change.

Having dealt with a number of UN reps on some international projects, I have seen nothing but either ineptitude or outright corruption.

(FYI Americans and western nations hold quite a bit of control within the UN administration, I don't think this really wrests control away from Americans, just away from the "wrong" Americans)

In it's defense an organization with the UN's goals cannot give up the tool of bribery and be able to function in the developing world.

This is probably more of a power play to get people within an corruptible org to run something that has proven itself to not be so easily manipulated, under the guise of internationalism and "freedom."

I am actually impressed with ICANN not screwing things up royally except for perhaps not coming down hard enough on DNS and Registrar related issues. It's probably because ICANN is a more academic institution more than anything else, and somehow less corruptible.

Edited 2009-06-20 17:53 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE: UN Oversight?
by Evan on Sat 20th Jun 2009 18:08 UTC in reply to "UN Oversight?"
Evan Member since:
2006-01-18

Actually, after further reading, it looks like this is a tremendously bad idea.

I think a lot of people who read OSNews are from western countries with a pretty decent background in networking and understand the internet better than anyone who wrote this document.

This plainly looks like an attempted power grab by foreign countries (understandable) and not something that would be under UN control.

Having worked abroad on IT projects extensively, the lack of experience in the more nitty-gritty aspects of networking and how the internet functions would most likely cause disastrous committee-based concessions and implementation parameters.

Whoever came up with creating ICANN in America was an absolute genius in that it doesn't have to answer to congress or any other politically run technically ignorant group. This has probably more to do with the internet's success in the last decade than about anything else.

What this document could do which would be a good thing, is perhaps get ICANN to develop backup root zone servers for ipv6 (to calm anyone with legitimate concerns about ICANN being a US nonprofit) that are hosted by the EU and other developing countries.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: UN Oversight?
by Radio on Sat 20th Jun 2009 18:33 UTC in reply to "RE: UN Oversight?"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

Except if I am mistaken (or too naive), the EU does not attack the ICANN and ask for more meddling in its internals, but rather would like somebody else than the US gov. deciding if the ICANN is good enough to have its bail renewed. Well done, it could lead in fact to a reinforcment of the independance of the ICANN.If the ICANN does not have to answer the US Congress, it would not have to answer the UN (or anybody else oversighting) either, if that should happen.

From the EU document:
"Continuing to pursue an exclusively ‘back-seat’ approach to the development of international
Internet governance practices is therefore not an option. However, this does not mean that
governments need to have any stronger role in managing or controlling the day-to-day
operation of the Internet.
"

Edited 2009-06-20 18:36 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: UN Oversight?
by Lennie on Sun 21st Jun 2009 07:50 UTC in reply to "RE: UN Oversight?"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Their are rootservers around the world, their isn't any problem their:

http://www.root-servers.org/

It's the controlling body people have problems with.

Edited 2009-06-21 07:56 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: UN Oversight?
by Soulbender on Mon 22nd Jun 2009 13:52 UTC in reply to "RE: UN Oversight?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Having worked abroad on IT projects extensively, the lack of experience in the more nitty-gritty aspects of networking and how the internet functions would most likely cause disastrous committee-based concessions and implementation parameters.


Funny, that's exactly how I feel about the arrogant western asses who come over here and think they know everything when they actually don't. (Note: I am a westerner)
Also, much of Europe and Japan, for example, is a lot more ahead than the US in terms of internet deployment, research and understanding.

Edited 2009-06-22 13:52 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: UN Oversight?
by Radio on Sat 20th Jun 2009 18:24 UTC in reply to "UN Oversight?"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

Well, the US Federal Gov is not very efficient either - the only thing more hated than G.W.Bush by the end of his second term is the US Congress, according to polls. Maybe we should ask the Nederlands to take over? Or Switzerland? Norway? Nigeria?

The UN solution is the one making sense, politically speaking, but yeah, I know it is also a diplomatic trap.
Maybe the UNESCO.

Or an alliance of the CERN and a few other academic/scientific organisations around the world. Y'know, "back to the roots" (the internet & hypertext as a mean of scientific collaboration).

Anyway, the EU is not (openly) pushing for gaining direct control over the internet. It is better to do it know, especially since the contract is coming to its end, rather than when there will be a problem and we'll see a diplomatic war & bargaining during a period of international tension. Let's do it before the governments everywhere wake up and decide internet is a major nuisance (today Iran, tomorrow, it could be you! Think the equivalent of 2000 botched American Presidential Election spanning countrywide protests).

Edited 2009-06-20 18:38 UTC

Reply Score: 4

.
by renhoek on Sat 20th Jun 2009 20:32 UTC
renhoek
Member since:
2007-04-29

So far the ICANN has been doing a good job as i can tell. We have unicode characters in domain names (see for example http://卐.com/). The bad thing is the bad ipv4 allocation, but the mistakes were made before anybody could know the internet would be this big.

Normally i would say that an international body should handle cross border issues. In this case the ICANN is doing such a fine job this is not really needed.I don't like all the new wierd TLD's, but that's about it.

Reply Score: 4

RE: .
by tech10171968 on Sat 20th Jun 2009 23:49 UTC in reply to "."
tech10171968 Member since:
2007-05-22

So far the ICANN has been doing a good job as i can tell. We have unicode characters in domain names (see for example http://卐.com/). The bad thing is the bad ipv4 allocation, but the mistakes were made before anybody could know the internet would be this big.

Normally i would say that an international body should handle cross border issues. In this case the ICANN is doing such a fine job this is not really needed.I don't like all the new wierd TLD's, but that's about it.

I agree. This just seems like a solution looking for a problem.

Reply Score: 2

This is typical...
by jptros on Sun 21st Jun 2009 01:59 UTC
jptros
Member since:
2005-08-26

...EU counsel BS just like with Microsoft in regards to IE and WMP. They start running their mouths, complaining and then flexing their muscles instead of putting their collective a**es together to come up with a real beneficial solution. I'm not attacking their intentions but they need to put up something good or just shut up already instead of acting like a bunch of whining kids fighting over who gets to play with the ball at recess.

And for the sake of everyone, I hope their ideas don't involve the good for nothing UN as one poster suggested.

Reply Score: 1

v RE: This is typical...
by kaiwai on Sun 21st Jun 2009 02:25 UTC in reply to "This is typical..."
RE[2]: This is typical...
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 21st Jun 2009 06:58 UTC in reply to "RE: This is typical..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

the lack of any real contribution to NATO in the form of troops shows that Europeans are all words but when push comes to shove they hide in the corner hoping the American-Anglo (plus commonwealth) pick up the slack.


Uhm...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Forc...

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: This is typical...
by kaiwai on Sun 21st Jun 2009 07:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: This is typical..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

the lack of any real contribution to NATO in the form of troops shows that Europeans are all words but when push comes to shove they hide in the corner hoping the American-Anglo (plus commonwealth) pick up the slack.

Uhm...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Forc...


Perky buns, learn the definition of "real contribution". The UK has less population than Germany and yet allocates twice the amount of man power. You're telling me that a country with a higher population and yet providing less man power is actually making a 'real contribution' - or do you lack education on the phrase 'real contribution'?

Europe wants all the trappings of being able to beat their chest on the world stage but when it comes to the European Union doing something useful, like a combined defence force - its next to impossible. French are pandering to the large Muslim community in their own country whilst holding onto the dream that 'France will rise again', the Germans believing influence can appear out of no where and are still held hostage to the same sort of guilt that robs Japan from taking to the world stage - and perish the though of leaving the Dutch in charge of anything after the Srebrenica Genocide.

You want to step on the world stage and be a world power - start acting like one instead of being a whiny bi*ch expecting people simply to give you respect because you have a nice personality. Power is derived form the ability to back up your ideals with brute force. If you have no brute force anything you say is nothing less than pissing into the breeze.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: This is typical...
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 21st Jun 2009 08:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: This is typical..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

If you're so concerned about all this, then why haven't you enlisted in the New Zealand Defence Force to fight the good fight?

Look, you can talk about this nonsense until the eagles choke, but you're back there, sitting comfortably in a home, using your 4000NZD worth of Macs and writing posts on the internet about how other men and women hould be sent to war, but the fact of the matter is that we, the people, don't want our men and women to be there. We Dutch, for instance, have extended our mission in Afghanistan, since no one else is willing to step up - AS WAS AGREED.

And referencing the Srebrenica Massacre like that only further illustrates your lack of knowledge when it comes to these matters. I think you ought to read up on the events leading up to and surrounding this horrid event.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: This is typical...
by ssa2204 on Sun 21st Jun 2009 09:35 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: This is typical..."
ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

While I may not often agree with kaiwai, he does have a good point that is somewhat of a sorepoint in US/UK circles. It is valid to point out that the UK's contribution, and sacrifice, is incomparable to other EU partners. And let us make something quite clear, a lot of the contributions NATO partners have given are merely support and logistical, or based solely in safe zones. I don't mean to minimize the losses that any nations have faced over the past 8 years. But the fact does remain there is an unequal partnership. The whole issue of Afghanistan is has ramifications that spread across the whole globe. Lets not forget that beyond the issues of terrorism, Afghanistan is the leading resource for the heroin trade (which in this day and age reaches globally as well).

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: This is typical...
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 21st Jun 2009 09:49 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: This is typical..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

There are more wars going on than just Afghanistan. I can't speak for other countries, but bear in mind that the Dutch military is currently active in:

Afghanistan
Bosnia
Kosovo
Somalia
Bahrein
Sudan
Iraq

However, you never hear of any of those (other than Afghanistan) if you're not living in The Netherlands. This is the issue I'm taking with people like kaiwai and other armchair folk: they are not enlisted in the military, but do advocate sending men and women everywhere. In addition, they simply have no clue WHATSOEVER about who is serving where, and who is fulfilling which role where.

The Netherlands is a top-notch contributor to peacekeeping missions all around the world, for a long time now. However, Afghanistan is NOT a peacekeeping mission, and hence, we do not want our men and women to be there.

On top of that, it makes no sense to look at population figures. Our military employs 60000 people, which includes civilian personnel. You should look at the size of the military, not the population.

The drug question is also an interesting one - one that has little relevance in The Netherlands. Contrary to most other countries, our drug policies are NOT failing, and hence, our drug and drug-related problems are much smaller than those of many other nations. Why should OUR men and women fight so that other nations can maintain their failing dug policies?

The summary here is that the world looks simple from behind a computer screen. The truth is - the world is rarely simple, and people are hypocrites.

Edited 2009-06-21 09:50 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: This is typical...
by jack_perry on Sun 21st Jun 2009 14:52 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: This is typical..."
jack_perry Member since:
2005-07-06

In all fairness to the original critic, I don't think he was targeting the Netherlands. He explicitly named the Germans, for example. And quite a few people, including Europeans, have pointed out that NATO's commitment to Afghanistan has been an embarassment. Maybe they don't mean the Netherlands, though.

BTW, I'm one of the Americans who likes it that way. Someone, somewhere, recently pointed out that too many nations involved makes for too many generals to coordinate, usually unsuccessfully.

But I don't want to pursue this, because isn't this wayyyyy off topic now?

Edit: Incidentally, to head off anyone who might want to call me an armchair critic willing to send others: I was turned down several times from the military for health reasons (asthma, primarily) but one of my brothers serves.

Edited 2009-06-21 14:54 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: This is typical...
by Evan on Sun 21st Jun 2009 15:42 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: This is typical..."
Evan Member since:
2006-01-18

Bahrain?

Thom, I was working in Bahrain a year ago, I haven't seen anything in the news to suggest that there was any conflict outside of a few Shia protests on major holidays.

Could you please elaborate?

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: This is typical...
by DrillSgt on Sun 21st Jun 2009 15:51 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: This is typical..."
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

There are more wars going on than just Afghanistan. I can't speak for other countries, but bear in mind that the Dutch military is currently active in:

Afghanistan
Bosnia
Kosovo
Somalia
Bahrein
Sudan
Iraq

However, you never hear of any of those (other than Afghanistan) if you're not living in The Netherlands.


I hope you mean EU countries not hearing about those other places? I have served in all of them except for Bahrain, and at least in the US, to anyone who pays attention, they are all mentioned.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: This is typical...
by kaiwai on Sun 21st Jun 2009 17:27 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: This is typical..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

If you're so concerned about all this, then why haven't you enlisted in the New Zealand Defence Force to fight the good fight?


That is a non sequitur argument that has no relevant. To that sentence I might as well say, "why aren't you over here giving me a foot massage?"

Look, you can talk about this nonsense until the eagles choke, but you're back there, sitting comfortably in a home, using your 4000NZD worth of Macs and writing posts on the internet about how other men and women hould be sent to war, but the fact of the matter is that we, the people, don't want our men and women to be there. We Dutch, for instance, have extended our mission in Afghanistan, since no one else is willing to step up - AS WAS AGREED.


Mate, not only are Australia and New Zealand making sure our back yard isn't falling to pieces in the form of working in the pacific nations, both our countries also have deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq as well. We are pulling our weight alot more than you'd realise.

As for what I do, my brother is in the army and my father has just retired after being in for over 30 years. So don't give me this crap that I don't know what I am talking about. I'm at university but I have actually done aid work in the past. Unlike you, I actually got off my chuff in the past and contributed to something besides my own online ego.

And referencing the Srebrenica Massacre like that only further illustrates your lack of knowledge when it comes to these matters. I think you ought to read up on the events leading up to and surrounding this horrid event.


I suggest you read:

http://www.un.org/icty/krstic/TrialC1/judgement/index.htm

A litany of failures that resulted in 8,000 innocent civilians being brutally murdered.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: This is typical...
by ssa2204 on Sun 21st Jun 2009 20:26 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: This is typical..."
ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

1.) First off Thom, please do not even suggest in the remotest that there is no drug problem in Holland of all places. I am one who has seen in first hand. While your countries drug policy may be amenable to you, it is far to say there is no consequences from the global trade in heroin that is perpetrated by organized crime, which uses procedes to also fund just about every single criminal operation you can think of in every EU country (thanks to the open border system).

I say this with first hand knowledge for a good reason. The very first day I was ever in Amsterdam I was accosted by a junkie on the street. I saw with my own eyes that while you may not have criminalized users, you do in fact have addicts. You also by the way have had both American and Sicilian Mafia operating in your country for the past 30 years alone in the operation of the worldwide drug distribution of heroin. Those operations in even your own small counties have fueled as well illegal gambling, prostitution, political corruption, and most significantly in your country alone the trafficking of women as slaves for sex. While I certainly do not feel it necessary to single out the Netherlands, and yes they have done a significant job, the fact remains you have seemed to simply have closed your eyes and turned away from the problem. But no matter how much you and your fellow citizens care to deny and ignore, the reality is that tens of billions of dollars flow through every European country that is supported and protected by organized crime.

2.) Secondly, while we may commend the Netherlands for "extending" their Afghan mission, it needs to be made quite clear to your countrymen specifically then that their is a commitment to see the job through and not just merely satisfy yourselves with a pat on the back for "extending". This is a NATO operation, to which the Netherlands are a full NATO member who along with the benefits of being protecting also has obligations inherit in the signing. Just because the war is unpopular is not an excuse, I am sure every single UK soldier that has served would probably liked to have been elsewhere as well. But I do agree with Kawai, (and this is NOT just about the Netherlands specifically) ..and let me make this clear, this is about ALL NATO members.

And while you are absolutely correct to point out that one should look merely at military personal totals and not population totals, this still does not shine brightly on many NATO countries. If anything this is been an abject failure among politicians of all parties to explain their obligations and the necessities for the mission at hand. Excuse me for playing this card, but I am sure that every American who served in both the liberation of your country, and other EU nations, and those that served in the decades later under NATO command would have loved to have been elsewhere.

And let us be quite clear about another subject at hand. Violent extremists and terrorists who have conducted post 9/11 operations have all been homegrown on your side of the pond. The fact remains that throughout ALL of Europe you have maintained extremely liberal immigration policies whilst at the same time done pathetically poor jobs in integration and assimilation; which have in turn done nothing but fuel extremism. The fact is simple; within European nations the UK has been bearing a significantly higher cost than ANY other EU nation both in terms of blood, time, and cost. And I would reiterate that there is a few nations in that list whose sole contribution is mere logistical support far removed from any combat zone. It is quite clear that Europe has itself it's own problems with extremists, and making little documentaries attacking evil Islam is not going to end it!

It is also significant to point out that ISAF totals do NOT include those US and UK personal serving outside the NATO command. Believe me when I say this is a significant thorn here that once again Continentals like yourself wish to get ALL the benefits from a US/UK coalition, without spending a dime. The peace with which you Europeans enjoy today was paid for in both blood and significant money by the U.S. It is quite apparent over the past two decades that the only nation that understands the role requirement for European stability and peace is the one nation that is not even attached to the continent. I am sure you would all just love it if the next time the Germans decide to go on holiday and invade your little nations if the UK said "sorry, we are on vacation and have better things to do."

Edited 2009-06-21 20:29 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: This is typical...
by slight on Sun 21st Jun 2009 16:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: This is typical..."
slight Member since:
2006-09-10

According to that Wikipedia page the UK actually contributes ~1.6 times as much man power per-capita as the States.

Come on US, pull your weight!

:p

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: This is typical...
by JAlexoid on Sun 21st Jun 2009 21:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: This is typical..."
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Your ignorance of the history is staggering. Last 2 world wars started in Europe. Last 50 years were the first ones, that did not see any massive military conflicts. Do you really think we give a s**t what NZ thinks of us? You probably can't even comprehend the ethnic and cultural diversity that is stuffed in this area.
To put into perspective, if I take a car and drive west of my city, for 48 hours, I pass through Baltic, Slavic, Celtic and Germanic lands. And all different cultures, languages and traditions.

UK was dragged in by the American warmongering into Iraq, and that only proves to me that we have better understanding where to commit our people.
Though, I wish Europe would have stepped up more in preventing wars.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: This is typical...
by kaiwai on Mon 22nd Jun 2009 03:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: This is typical..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Your ignorance of the history is staggering. Last 2 world wars started in Europe. Last 50 years were the first ones, that did not see any massive military conflicts. Do you really think we give a s**t what NZ thinks of us? You probably can't even comprehend the ethnic and cultural diversity that is stuffed in this area.


Why should I care about the opinion of a person who registered just over a month ago as to spew bile and vitriol against those whom you disagree with.

To put into perspective, if I take a car and drive west of my city, for 48 hours, I pass through Baltic, Slavic, Celtic and Germanic lands. And all different cultures, languages and traditions.


In New Zealand we have 213 ethnic groups, over 30% of the population is non-European (the statistics on wikipedia is based on language which is hugely inaccurate).

I only need to look at the racist attitudes of Europeans when it comes to the failure to integrate immigrants into the mainstream to thank the lord that we don't have the myopic vision embraced by the continent.

UK was dragged in by the American warmongering into Iraq, and that only proves to me that we have better understanding where to commit our people.


Who said anything about Iraq. Iraq was a war that should never have been started because there was no justification for it. There was more justification, if 'democracy spreading' and 'security' were lynch pins, to sort out North Korea or Burma.

Though, I wish Europe would have stepped up more in preventing wars.


You can't step up when you lack the muscle to put behind what you say; Europe's population is considerably larger than USA and yet when it comes to a coherent defence policy and a harmonisation between the defence forces, its non-existent. Rather than a united Europe you have a Europe divided along country lines where the combined forces are never put behind any declaration or position taken.

Edited 2009-06-22 03:32 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: This is typical...
by Moulinneuf on Sun 21st Jun 2009 13:47 UTC in reply to "RE: This is typical..."
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

You know what I am gonna go a big limp of reality here and state the obvious :

* You have no clue what the EU is and do.
* You have no clue what the UN is and do.
* You have no clue what NATO is and do and where the troops come from.
* You obvioulsy bought the Microsoft is poor mistreated company bulshit campaign.
* Your a racist who think some people , in your words
"race" are more important then others ...

Just to be clear on that last point racist : there is only one race on the planet "The Human race" , the rest are animals and plants.

* The last two time the UN was disolved there was a World war ...

Someone been feeding you garbage and instead of doing some proper research and educate yourself with real data , you been following the sensionnalist press and you decided to believe the bullshit propaganda ...

http://www.un.org/
http://europa.eu/
http://www.nato.int
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

Don't go there , the truth is more realist ...

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: This is typical...
by kaiwai on Sun 21st Jun 2009 17:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: This is typical..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

You know what I am gonna go a big limp of reality here and state the obvious :

* You have no clue what the EU is and do.


A large bloated organisation that wastes $300 billion per year on agricultural subsidies? am i getting close?

* You have no clue what the UN is and do.


I know more about it than you'll even know about the contours of your own ass crack.

* You have no clue what NATO is and do and where the troops come from.


North Atlantic Treaty Organisation that was created as a bulwark against communist expansion; the Soviet Union created their counterbalance in the form of the Warsaw Pact. Getting close am I?

* You obvioulsy bought the Microsoft is poor mistreated company bulshit campaign.


You really think that Opera's complaints are justified - show me where Microsoft has stopped you from installing a browser (or infact any software) of your choice.

* Your a racist who think some people , in your words
"race" are more important then others ...


Where did I mention race, or are you another dickhead you can't differentiate between race and culture?

Just to be clear on that last point racist : there is only one race on the planet "The Human race" , the rest are animals and plants.


No one said there was racial superiority of one group of people over another. You may indulge in collectivism in the form of 'the good of the people' but I don't.

* The last two time the UN was disolved there was a World war ...

Someone been feeding you garbage and instead of doing some proper research and educate yourself with real data , you been following the sensionnalist press and you decided to believe the bullshit propaganda


Yeah, yeah, you keep telling yourself that. The UN is nothing short of a paper tiger that is turned into a joke where legitimate human rights treaties are routinely scuttled by the Islamic world if it dares to seek to protect females, gays, lesbians, bisexual, transgendered, ethic minority groups and religious minorities from being persecuted.

But hey, you keep dancing around naked knowing that the human rights council in the UN is dominated by some of the worlds worst human rights abusers on the planet. Isn't it nice to be judged by the Sudanese representative as they unilaterally obliterate those who don't fit into their racial view of Sudan.

Edited 2009-06-21 17:12 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: This is typical...
by Moulinneuf on Mon 22nd Jun 2009 01:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: This is typical..."
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

Clearly you know nothing personnaly of the subject you discussed here ...

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: This is typical...
by kaiwai on Mon 22nd Jun 2009 02:57 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: This is typical..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Clearly you know nothing personnaly of the subject you discussed here ...


And thus you demonstrate that you lack the intellectual capacity to break down my points and critique them. Where am I wrong? where I am incorrect or are you yet another individual on this website whose understanding of the world comes out of leftist clap-trap written under the auspicious gaze of Edward Said and Co.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: This is typical...
by testman on Mon 22nd Jun 2009 12:07 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: This is typical..."
testman Member since:
2007-10-15

Where am I wrong?

You've been here how long? And you're arguing with Moulinneuf??

Oh, and go easy on the the armchair politics—you're sounding like a high-strung seppo.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: This is typical...
by kaiwai on Tue 23rd Jun 2009 02:07 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: This is typical..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

You've been here how long? And you're arguing with Moulinneuf??


Point noted; I should remember that arguing with Moulinneuf is an exercise in futility. I guess having seen but a small number of useful posts by him that maybe he will engage in a debate using more than just retorts about supposed deficiencies in an argument whilst lacking the 'why' component'

Oh, and go easy on the the armchair politics—you're sounding like a high-strung seppo.


You're right - I do like a good robust debate regarding politics but it irritates me when I see Moulinneuf ignore reality in favour of name calling and complaining. It kinda brings a degree of fear knowing that maybe one day Moulinneuf might have some influence in the world - even in a minor capacity of a voter.

Edited 2009-06-23 02:09 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: This is typical...
by Moulinneuf on Mon 22nd Jun 2009 15:03 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: This is typical..."
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

To have a point , you have to have a minimal understanding of what you discuss. You clearly don't.

Your thinking that your sensionalist and over simplified mention of lies you where told second hand are realist.

Your writing here in this case are beyond ridicule and laughable , I am simply in awe that someone could be so miss-informed or more accurately brainwashed into such position of lies and more importantly that you would be such an individual.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: This is typical...
by testman on Mon 22nd Jun 2009 12:13 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: This is typical..."
testman Member since:
2007-10-15

Clearly you know nothing personnaly(sic) of the subject you discussed here ...

Mouli, are you referring to "EU Admits ICANN Is Doing Fine…" or this derailed thread of armchair-politics?

Reply Score: 2

Politics
by Michael on Sun 21st Jun 2009 16:59 UTC
Michael
Member since:
2005-07-01

Instead of pretending to engage with the issues here, I'll just cut to the chase and state my political leanings. I'm a liberal socialist non-federalist pro-european.

As a European, I have no influence if ICANN muck me about. As long as that isn't happening, I don't care who they answer to but I'm glad the EU are preparing for other eventualities. Indeed, the fact that ICANN have been playing nice may in part be a defensive move based on the threat of a change in the status quo.

If anyone has any other arguments that aren't based on their own opinion of the organizations involved, I'd be glad to hear them. As for what you think of the US government, the EU or the UN, I really couldn't give a pair of foetid dingo's kidneys.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Politics
by Tuishimi on Mon 22nd Jun 2009 03:17 UTC in reply to "Politics"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Foetid dingo kidneys? Ew.

Reply Score: 2

XXXX regulation not US problem...
by Aussieguy on Mon 22nd Jun 2009 02:09 UTC
Aussieguy
Member since:
2009-06-22

.com and all other high level domain space isn't for US or any one country to decide, which is why the EU aren't happy. .us is United States space and they can knock themselves out with legislation, hosting of content with the US can also be regulated by the US.

Now having a XXXX domain space for Adult Content should be very simple, if it is pornographic then it should be XXXX is it is xxxx.us or xxxx.au then the respected Countries can legislate their asses off to restrict allow whatever. XXXX should be all the content that COM, NET, ORG etc don't allow, but who is going to decide the rules for registration as there appears to be none for top level domains?

Reply Score: 1