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 412948
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Three strikes in the USA?
by SReilly on Tue 9th Mar 2010 21:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Three strikes in the USA?"
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

SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

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.

Wow. Just, wow! What is it that you don't understand about what I'm saying? I'm not talking about Europe's current military might and I already pointed out that it wouldn't stack up to the US. What I'm talking about is a unified European military, including budget for R&D. It's no secret that the US is extremely jealous of it's current military dominance. Anything that could potentially knock them off of top spot in the future is worrying to anybody at the top of their game.

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.

If you seriously think that just because we are close allies now that the situation couldn't change in the future then you are seriously mistaken. Yes it seems unlikely but history has plenty to say about broken alliances.

If you re-read what I wrote, you'll see I've yet to say anything about either side menacing each other militarily. What I was pointing out was that all countries negotiate on the basis of their strength. If you're so naive that you think the US wouldn't use it's military superiority as leverage in economic dealings then I can't help you. Oh, and by the way, it doesn't have to be Europe we're talking about. The amount of examples I could give you...

Furthermore, where did I mention that the US is using it's military power to enforce ACTA? Do you need glasses by any chance or do you just like putting words in my mouth?

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.

I've already given one example of US bullying tactics towards Europe. You know, the whole Cuban embargo policy? Where you not paying attention? Maybe you don't know the following but the US did state that any ship or aircraft that had been band and repeatedly tried entry into US ports would be fired upon. If that doesn't sound like bullying to you then I don't know what possibly could.

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

No I'm not. That's all in your head I'm afraid, probably brought on by your lack of comprehension.

Reply Parent Score: 3

essdeekay Member since:
2006-01-31

The U.S. isn't bullying Europe, nor is it engaging in protectionist practices.


That's not entirely true. I agree with most of the rest of your comments, but both the US and Europe engage in protectionist practices when it suits them - I don't agree with it, but to dismiss that it occurs is naive.

One recent example of this is the US' Aerial Refueling Tanker program (aka KC-X), which had two primary bidders - Boeing (US) and a consortium made up of Northrop Grumman (US) / EADS (European).

2003: Boeing won the contract only to have the contract award revoked due to an ethics scandal related to the contract
2008: Northrop/EADS were awarded the contract - US senators in uproar that US tax dollars may go to European company
2008-2010: USAF change terms of contract to favor Boeing's smaller aircraft, making Northrop/EADS' position untenable
2010: Northrop/EADS officially withdraw their bid

However you look at the goings-on of that program, there definitely are protectionist practices occuring in the US at this very moment.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

nor is it engaging in protectionist practices.


I guess you mean "this time" (which is questionable anyway) because otherwise this is just incredibly naive.

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

SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

Care to qualify that statement? Or are you just trolling again?

If I recall correctly, it's you who's been consistently unable to come out with a valid statement in any of our discussions. In fact, I end up handing your ass to you every time due to your jumping to conclusions and general level of ignorance on most subjects you start spouting off about.

Seriously, you're the last person on this forum that can start calling somebody else stupid. Whatever gave you the idea that not being able to understand copyright law somehow made you an expert on it? That's like Bill O'Reilly saying evolution can't be right because it's to complicated for him to understand.

Reply Parent Score: 2