Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 9th Mar 2010 16:58 UTC
Legal We have some very, very good news for Europeans (which happens to include myself): we have the European Parliament on our sides when it comes to battling ACTA. If you may recall, ACTA is basically an attempt by the US to impose upon the rest of the world draconian measures like three strikes laws and the DMCA. All parties within the European Parliament have together put forth a resolution that would effectively tackle ACTA.
Thread beginning with comment 412919
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Three strikes in the USA?
by SReilly on Tue 9th Mar 2010 19:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Three strikes in the USA?"
SReilly
Member since:
2006-12-28

The EU is VERY protective of what it thinks is its rights when it involves business, telling the US what it can do, while not allowing us to have the same advantage.

Dude, that's like the pot calling the kettle black. It goes both ways.

One good example is the U.S.'s fixation on Cuba, something we Europeans consider to be verging on hysteria. The US decided that the Cuban trade blockade should extended to the rest of the world, driving the Cuban people further into poverty, a policy that doesn't actually help you guys get rid of Castro, by the way. You declare that any aircraft or ship that makes port in Cuba cannot make port in the US for at least six months. Upon hearing this, Europe decides it will not be pushed around and declares that for every aircraft or ship that is denied port on those terms, two US aircraft or ships will be denied port in Europe for at least one year. You should have seen how fast the US backed off on that policy.

In the end, it's our right to defend ourself against the USs bullying tactics. I'm glad the EP has taken a stand, you guys try to abuse your power far too much and as we Europeans don't have the military capacity to rattle out sabers, we are going to use what we do have that can hurt you, by far the larger of the two's trading power.

Reply Parent Score: 7

boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

In the end, it's our right to defend ourself against the USs bullying tactics. I'm glad the EP has taken a stand, you guys try to abuse your power far too much and as we Europeans don't have the military capacity to rattle out sabers, we are going to use what we do have that can hurt you, by far the larger of the two's trading power.


That is a seriously warped world-view. The whole reason that most EU states get away with not having much of an army of their own is because the U.S. -- they guys with the biggest military of any single nation on Earth -- is guaranteeing their security from outside threats for them. Our military is a benefit for you, not a threat. The whole reason, for example, that Japan can be right next to China, with the history they have an tension between those states that exists, and not have a standing army is because the U.S. has kindly pledged our own military to their defence! Not to mention that it's pretty much nothing short of ridiculous to try to claim that military competition enters into US/EU trade negotiations.

And I may point out, the original point is valid. The U.S. does not have Three Strikes laws. If ACTA is ratified, it'll actually create a whole raft of onerous new requirements for U.S. citizens too -- and the U.S. public is being kept just much in the dark as everyone else is. In my never-humble opinion, the ACTA is just as much an effort to sneak crazy new regulations past the U.S. legislature as it is to force anything onto the European Union; it's an effort that's being lead by some other interested group to co-opt both the U.S. and E.U.'s internet policies, not some diabolical plot by the U.S. government to force the E.U. to do things our way.

Edited 2010-03-09 20:51 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0

shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

You do know that two of the EU states are also Have Nuclear Weapons. Who are they?
Great Britain & France.

That is far more of a deterrent to the possible threats from the East of the EU than American power is.
The US has a habid of dithering when it comes to joining in an existing war. Vietnam did that. This is one of the major gripes that France has with the US.

Reply Parent Score: 3

SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

That is a seriously warped world-view. The whole reason that most EU states get away with not having much of an army of their own is because the U.S. -- they guys with the biggest military of any single nation on Earth -- is guaranteeing their security from outside threats for them. Our military is a benefit for you, not a threat. The whole reason, for example, that Japan can be right next to China, with the history they have an tension between those states that exists, and not have a standing army is because the U.S. has kindly pledged our own military to their defence! Not to mention that it's pretty much nothing short of ridiculous to try to claim that military competition enters into US/EU trade negotiations.

First off, the cold war is a long time over. Secondly, you don't seem to know much about European armies. On their own and compared to the US, individual European powers have small standing armies but together they form quite a formidable force. If you seriously think that the idea of a unified European armed forces does not make the US nervous then it is you, my friend, who has a seriously warped view of the world. To think that trade negotiations of any kind are done without keeping thoughts of military power in mind is very naive and completely flies in the face of history.

And I may point out, the original point is valid. The U.S. does not have Three Strikes laws. If ACTA is ratified, it'll actually create a whole raft of onerous new requirements for U.S. citizens too -- and the U.S. public is being kept just much in the dark as everyone else is. In my never-humble opinion, the ACTA is just as much an effort to sneak crazy new regulations past the U.S. legislature as it is to force anything onto the European Union; it's an effort that's being lead by some other interested group to co-opt both the U.S. and E.U.'s internet policies, not some diabolical plot by the U.S. government to force the E.U. to do things our way.

I agree that the original point stands, but that was not what I was talking about. I was talking about the fact that the US uses it's military might in ways that are considered bullying by the rest of the world. The parent post was getting all huffy about Europe being protectionist. How can a US citizen claim protectionism by any other state or group of states and still keep a strait face? Just take a look at the WTO and the World Bank. It's the definition of hypocrisy to claim that Europe is protectionist when coming from a US centric point of view.

Reply Parent Score: 4

Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

The whole reason, for example, that Japan can be right next to China, with the history they have an tension between those states that exists, and not have a standing army is because the U.S. has kindly pledged our own military to their defence! Not to mention that it's pretty much nothing short of ridiculous to try to claim that military competition enters into US/EU trade negotiations.

*facepalms hard*

Reply Parent Score: 2

The1stImmortal Member since:
2005-10-20

The whole reason that most EU states get away with not having much of an army of their own is because the U.S. -- they guys with the biggest military of any single nation on Earth -- is guaranteeing their security from outside threats for them.

I believe the Chinese military's actually bigger, in terms of troops. ;)
The whole reason, for example, that Japan can be right next to China, with the history they have an tension between those states that exists, and not have a standing army is because the U.S. has kindly pledged our own military to their defence!

I thought the reason Japan was right next to china was more to do with plate tectonics, vulcanism and sea levels? ;)
To be fair though - in this case Japan's existence vs China's slight expansionist tendencies probably is far more complex than "the US has lots of guns"... besides the historical separation, it traces back to before WWII (Japan occupied big chunks of china for quite a while there), and also involves the USSR (when it existed), as well as the insane amount of money the US poured (directly or indirectly) into post-war Japan.
Whilst the US's military might certainly has a massive impact on global politics, it's simplistic and wrong when people argue along the lines that the US is the primary protector of the "free world".

Reply Parent Score: 2

twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

"
That is a seriously warped world-view. The whole reason that most EU states get away with not having much of an army of their own is because the U.S. -- they guys with the biggest military of any single nation on Earth -- is guaranteeing their security from outside threats for them. Our military is a benefit for you, not a threat. The whole reason, for example, that Japan can be right next to China, with the history they have an tension between those states that exists, and not have a standing army is because the U.S. has kindly pledged our own military to their defence! Not to mention that it's pretty much nothing short of ridiculous to try to claim that military competition enters into US/EU trade negotiations. "

Europe can defend itself without America and even against America if that will be the case. We got our own nukes, aircraft carriers and the rest of toys, so we don't need America to defend us. We don't need NATO. Many of us don't approve what US stooges like Blair have done: invading Irak and Afganistan for N O T H I N G.

You are crying on the wrong shoulders.

Edited 2010-03-10 02:17 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

The whole reason that most EU states get away with not having much of an army of their own is because the U.S. -- they guys with the biggest military of any single nation on Earth -- is guaranteeing their security from outside threats for them.


Most EU states does not have any outside threats to be protected from. And seriously, the reason for the heavy US military presence in Europe is mostly a left-over from the cold war.

The whole reason, for example, that Japan can be right next to China


Uhm, aren't we talking about Europe?

and not have a standing army is because the U.S. has kindly pledged our own military to their defence!


Wow, yeah. Kindly. The Japanese constitution (which has the no armed forces clause) was imposed by the U.S after WW2. Kind has very little to do with it.

If ACTA is ratified, it'll actually create a whole raft of onerous new requirements for U.S. citizens too -- and the U.S. public is being kept just much in the dark as everyone else is.


yes, but that doesn't make cramming it down the throat of everyone else less bad.

Reply Parent Score: 3