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 412933
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Yes, I did know that. But, frankly, the point still stands. Why don't you guys have huge armies? Because we do, and we're your very good buddies; we're such good buddies, that we'll let you borrow ours, if you really need it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I also believe that the British and French nuclear arsenals are a tiny, tiny fraction of the US's, aren't they? I want to say the British have all of one nuclear submarine?

Not that huge nuclear arsenals are a good thing, mind! It's just that - again, so far as I know, and I could be wrong - the French and British arsenals are more tokens than real and credible deterrents.

Reply Parent Score: 2

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

boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

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.


I see. First, don't under-estimate the social consequences of the Cold War. The U.S. is still very much the primary guarantor of the E.U.'s territorial integrity, even if there's presently not any great external threat, and we don't talk about it much anymore. And second, how exactly would the entire E.U. stack up against the U.S. as a combined force? I'm pretty sure you guys aren't even second-place, and I think second place is also pretty distant, but I'd have to check to be sure.

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.


Yes, I'm pretty sure that a combined E.U. military force doesn't frighten the U.S., because the U.S. and the E.U. are close allies. The U.S. is not threatening the E.U. here, and the E.U. isn't threatening the U.S. Nobody at the ACTA - or pretty much any EU/US trade discussion - is rattling sabers, I can all but guarantee you. You're pretty much the only person I've ever heard try to claim that the US and EU are menacing each other with displays of military might, double plus that we're doing it over a treaty about international copyright law.

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.


The U.S. isn't bullying Europe, nor is it engaging in protectionist practices. (I cannot wait to read your response to that.) The worst thing that we've done is dig our heals in and obstruct global climate legislation -- which is a bad thing, but hardly "bullying" on a grand scale. We're also an extremely open market. Like, to the point of shooting ourselves in the foot.

Honestly, you make it sound like the U.S. is actively threatening to annex mainland Europe -- which is just ridiculous.

Edited 2010-03-09 22:19 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

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.


This may be one of the dumbest statements made by you to date. Might want to think this one through for a moment, or pick up a book for once and educate yourself.

Reply Parent Score: 2

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

boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Did I... miss something here? Is that not true? Are we not military allies with Japan? I'm guessing you're annoyed because you think I don't know that the reason Japan has no military is that we forced them to disarm after World War II? I am not ignorant of the fact.

The reason that they've been able to get away with continued national pacifism is very much that they're our close buddies. (I honestly don't know if there's an explicit guarantee of defense in place or not; I'm presuming from your reaction that there isn't?)

(Er, I think I was thinking more of North Korea than China, buy the way; it's my understanding that many Japanese consider North Korea to be a major external threat, and that it's something of a political issue over there if they can really count on the U.S. to defend them, or if they need an army of their own. I think. Correct me if I'm wrong.)

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

boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Thank you for a more direct and reasonable response.

Simplistic, but maybe not completely wrong. I'm not trying to demand that the rest of the Free World pay up, because the U.S. army is all that stands between them and Eternal Night at the hands of the USSR, Communist China and Allah. At all. What I'm trying to do is point out to O'reilly (if I remember his name right) that the US and EU are not competing militarily, and that we are, in fact, close allies and economic partners.

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

boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

1). I'm not crying on anyone's shoulders.

2). This was the pertinent part of that post:

Our military is a benefit for you, not a threat.

Seriously. Really. You have your own military. I know. The U.S. is not competing with Europe, militarily. The U.S. is not using it's military to threaten Europe into accepting the ACTA. That was my point. The U.S. aren't the bad guys at the ACTA. The RIAA et. al. are. And they are not the U.S. government, or a representative body of its citizenry.

Edited 2010-03-10 16:42 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

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

smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

So much america bashing going on, it's sad.

It's true western europe doesn't have anything to worry about, but eastern europe still very much fears Russia. Especially after their invasion of Georgia. A lot of former client states feel like they could be next.

I may disagree with a lot of american policies, but there are some good ones too and that shouldn't be ignored. What do you think would happen to South Korea if our troops withdrew?

And as far as america fearing other countries building up their militaries, it's been kind of the opposite actually. We've been practically begging Europe and Japan to increase their armed forces, under the assumption that if they did so more troops would go to NATO peacekeeping missions, which is something our own military hates to do (and therefore sucks at). You could also supply more ships to the naval patrols off Somalia stopping the pirate attacks, something the US would really love and which is less controversial than some other tasks. I do think we fear China's military buildup, but Europe seriously is not even on the radar. We wish it was...

Anyway, every country on earth tries to bargain and get it's own way when dealing with others, and you're naive if you think any differently. Even countries within the EU negotiate and try to outmaneuver others they are supposedly so close with, for the good of their own citizens over their neighbors. Does america's military play a part in that for the US - sure. But looking at the big picture, I'd say it's played a far lesser role than our dominance in the economic arena has. I think that's a credit to the us, because a lot of other countries in the same position probably wouldn't be able to say the same thing.

Edited 2010-03-10 05:22 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2